Skip to main content

Full text of "Defense Equal Opportunity Council, Report of the Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, Volume 1 and 2"

See other formats


2BJUL .5 



Ref: 95-F-1239 



Mr, John G. Gowan 

LI BERT AD 

PO Box 23067 

Albuquerque NM 87192-1067 
Dear Mr. Gowan: 

This responds to your May 12, 1995, Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA) request pertaining to the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Council Report of the Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual 
Harassment. Your letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Air 
Force, was referred to this Directorate for administrative FOIA 
processing. We received your letter on May 31, 1995. Our 
June 9, 1995, interim response refers. The Air Force will 
respond to you regarding the curriculum for which you asked. 

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness has provided the enclosed records as responsive to 
the first item you requested. There are no assessable fees in 
this instance. 



Sincerely, 




A. H. Passarella 
Director 

Freedom of Information 



and Security Review 



Enclosures : 
As stated 



Prepared by hogan:5F123911:7/25/95:DFOI:X71160:gr/_pk 



yl ^wh 





MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS 

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 
UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING 
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE 
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION 
ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAQEMENT 
DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES 

SUBJECT: Report of the DEOC Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 

I have approved the final report of the DEOC Task Force, including all 48 of the 
recommendations. The report is attached. 

The task force identified two goals and five principles for Military Equal Opportunity 
programs. They recommend improvements in the Services' discrimination and harassment 
prevention programs, including the establishment of Department-wide standards for 
. discrimination complaints processing to ensure the fair and prompt resolution of complaints. 

The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness will embody the task force's 
recommendations in the appropriate Department of Defense Directives and Instructions, which 
will be issued by the Secretary of Defense by May 31, 1995. Secretary Perry and I expect that he 
- will receive your complete support in this task. 



Attachment: 
As stated 




U3402b 



DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 



lOlO DEFENSE PENTAGON 
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1010 

MAY 5 i995 



MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS 

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 
UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING 
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE 
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION 
ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 
DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES 

SUBJECT: Report of the DEOC Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 



I have approved the final report of the DEOC Task Force, including all 48 of the 
recommendations. The report is attached. 

The task force identified two goals and five principles for Military Equal Opportunity 
programs. They recommend improvements in the Services' discrimination and harassment 
prevention programs, including the establishment of Department- wide standards for 
discrimination complaints processing to ensure the fair and prompt resolution of complaints. 

The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness will embody the task force's 
recommendations in the appropriate Department of Defense Directives and Instructions, which 
will be issued by the Secretary of Defense by May 31, 1995. Secretary Perry and I expect that he 
will receive your complete support.in this task. 




Attachment: 
As stated 



\]3h02b /95 



o/. ^ 



Defense Equal Opportunity Council 




Report of Task Force 

on 

Discrimination and Sexual 
Harassment 



May 1995 



Table of Contents 

VOLUME I; Report of the DEOC Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 



Executive Summary i 

A. Introduction 1 

B. Findings and Recommendations , \\ 

L Command Commitment and Accountability 

2. Service Distinctiveness 

3. Clarity of Policy 

4. Effective Training 

5. Prompt, Thorough and Fair Complaints Handling 

C. National Guard and Reserve Programs 42 

D. Joint Organizations and Defense Agencies - 44 

E. Appendices 47 

1. Secretary of Defense memorandum, "Equal Opportunity (EO)," March 3, 1994. 

2. Secretary of the Air Force and Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readmess) 
joint memorandum for the Deputy Secretary of Defense, "Sexual Harassment Policy 
Plan," April 25, 1994. 

3. DoD Human Goals Charter 

4. Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Prevention Program Analysis Matrix 

5. Table Comparing Definitions of Key EO Terms 

6. Secretary of Defense memorandum, "Prohibition of Sexual Harassment in the 
Department of Defense (DoD)," August 22, 1994. 

7. Administrative Measures for Correcting Military Offenders 

8. Comparison of UCMJ Forums 

9. Charging Sexual Harassment and Other Discrimination Under the UCMJ 

1 0. Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of Military 
Department Investigations of Allegations of Discrimination by Military Personnel 
(Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Inspector General: March 1994). 

1 1 . Suggested Timelines for Complaints Investigations 



VOLUME II; Additional Materials 



A List of Task Force Members 

B. Summaries of Task Force Briefings 

C. Chronology of Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policy within the Federal Government and 
the Department of Defense 

D. Annotated Bibliography of Reference Materials on Sexual Harassment in the Files of the 
ODASDOEO) 

E. DoD Directive 1350.2, "The Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program," 
December 23, 1988. 

F. DoD Instruction 1350.3, "Affirmative Action Planning and Assessment Process," February 29 
1988. 

G. Summary of Current Professional Military Education EO Training 



DEOC TASK FORCE 
ON 

DISCRIMINATION 
AND 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 



CO-CHAIRS 

DR. SHEILA E. WIDNALL 
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 

DR. EDWIN DORN 
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS 



PANEL MEMBERS 



MS. DEBORAH R. LEE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

(RESERVE AFFAIRS) 

MS. JUDITH MILLER 
DOD GENERAL COUNSEL 

MR. DEREK J. VANDER SCHAAF 
DOD DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MS. SARA E. LISTER 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

(MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) 

MR. FREDERICK F. Y. PANG 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
(FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY) 

DR. BERNARD ROSTKER 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 

(MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) 

MS. FLORENCE MADDEN 

ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AIR 

FORCE (MILITARY AFFAIRS) 



MS. KATHERINE ARCHULETA 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

MR. WALTER SOMERVILLE 
CHIEF. OFHCE OF CIVIL RIGHTS 
U.S. COAST GUARD 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

LTGEN BILLY J. BOLES. USAF 
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF (PERSONNEL) 

LTGEN GEORGE R. CHRISTMAS. USMC 
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF (MANPOWER AND 
RESERVE AFFAIRS) 

VADM FRANK BOWMAN, USN 
DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 
(MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL) 

MG WALLACE C. ARNOLD. USA 
ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 
(PERSONNEL) 

RADM PATRICIA A. TRACEY. USN 
DIRECTOR FOR MANPOWER AND 
PERSONNEL. JOINT STAFF 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



We wish to extend our sincere appreciation to the following staff members and to the Legal 
Policy Working Group for their professional advice and dedicated assistance. 

Coordinating Staff 



Mr. William E. Leftwich, III 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Equal Opportunity 
Mr. Claiborne D. Haughton Jr., 

Principal Director, Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal 

Opportunity 
Colonel John D. Cox, USAF 
Colonel Hubert Bridges, USA 
Mr. Jerry Anderson, OSD 



Mr. James E. Love, OSD 

Ms. Adrianne Goins, OSD 

Ms. Lori Hendricks, OSD 

Lieutenant Colonel John Andrew, USAF 

Staff Sergeant Teresa OUison, USAF 

Senior Airman Bobbie L. Garrett, USAF 

Senior Airman Youlanda L. Grant, USAF 

Ms. Mary Williams, OSD 

Ms. Carlita T. Telsee, OSD 



Legal Policy Working Group 

Co-Chair - Ms. Florence Madden, Assistant General Counsel of the Air Force 
Co-Chair - Mr. Paul Koffsky, Deputy General Counsel (Personnel and Health Policy), Office of 

the Secretary of Defense 

Colonel James Smyser, USA Colonel Jarisse Sanbom, USAF 

Lieutenant Colonel Stephanie Willson, USA Lieutenant Colonel Rick Rosen, USA 

Ms. Susan McNeill, OSD Conmiander Bill Miller, USN 

Mr. Barry Kean, OS AF Major James Reistrup, USMC 

Captain Gerald Kirkpatrick, USN Lieutenant Colonel Stephanie Spahn, USA 
Colonel Jack L. Rives, USAF 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



Equal opportunity is a military necessity. It provides the All-Volunteer Force access to 
the widest possible pool of qualified men and women, it allows the military to train and assign 
people according to the needs of the Service, and it guarantees Service men and women that they 
will be judged by their performance and will be protected from discrimination and harassment.' 

This report was requested by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Each had 
made clear his personal conunitment to equal opportunity, and both had expressed concem about 
allegations that several recent complaints of discrimination and harassment had been handled 
inadequately or insensitively. They asked the Secretary of the Air Force and the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to co-chair a task force that would: 

• review the Military Services' discrimination complaints systems, and 

• recommend Department- wide standards for discrimination complaints processing, where 
necessary, to ensure the fair and prompt resolution of complaints. 

This report recommends 48 improvements in the way the Armed Services deal with 
discrimination and harassment. Separate chapters address the specific circumstances of the 
Reserve Components and joint organizations, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

Goals for an Effective Equal Opportunity System 

The military is not just another employer, and military service is not just another job. The 
Armed Forces were established to defend the nation against foreign enemies. Every soldier. 
Sailor, airman and Marine is taught that his or her individual needs will be subordinated to that 
essential responsibility. Mihtary service requu-es a high level of professional skill, a 24-hour-a- 
day commitment, a willingness to give the last full measure of devotion. It is an uncommon 
profession that calls for people of unconrunon dedication. 

A Service member's first obligation is to fulfill his or her assigned military mission. 
Missions, however, are not assigned to individuals but to units, and the success of missions 
depends in large measure on the degree of trust and understanding that exists among people in 
units. Military personnel often find themselves in situations where a moment's hesitation ~ a 
second of doubt about another member of the team - can mean disaster. 

This recognition of the special character of the military and of military service leads us to 
posit two goals for the equal opportunity program of the Department of Defense: 

Unit Effectiveness In order to execute their responsibilities, the men and women of the Military 
Services must function as a team, unified by special bonds of trust, mutual respect, loyalty, and 
sacrifice. Shared values and shared risks, positive identification with the military institution, and 



subordination of self characterize tJie military culture and distinguish it from other large 
institutions. Commanders are responsible for creating and sustaining effective units. To do so, 
they must eliminate discrimination and harassment because these offenses undercut the special 
qualities that are essential to unit effectiveness. 

Individual Opportunity and Fairness Individual members of the Military Services must have 
the opportunity to excel in an environment free from discrimination and harassment. The Human 
Goals charter of the Department of Defense states: "Our nation was founded on the principle 
that the individual has infinite dignity and worth. The Department of Defense . . . must always 
be guided by this principle."" Our Equal Opportunity programs, including our discrimination 
complaints processing systems, must be based on a goal of individual opportunity in order to 
uphold the principles upon which this country was founded ~ the principles which our military is 
charged to defend. 



Principles for an Effective Equal OpDortmiitv Svstem 

We identified five principles that military Equal Opportunity (EO) programs should 
follow in order to fiilfiU those twin goals. 

Command Commitment and Accountability Commanders' demonstrated leadership and 
personal commitment to equal opportunity must be visible and unequivocal. Further, 
commanders are expected to communicate standards of professional conduct and build an 
organizational culture where members are valued, respected, and treated fairly. The most 
effective way of ensuring accountability in military organizations is to give commanders the 
direct responsibility for managing the discrimination complaints system. 

Service Distinctiveness The Defense Department must establish goals and standards. However, 
since the Services differ in mission and organization. Equal Opportunity programs in the 
individual Military Services will be effective only if they are incorporated into Service 
professional military education programs, investigatory structures and procedures, disciplinary 
structures, and command responsibilities. 

Clarity of Policy Clear and concise written policies are necessary to ensure that military 
personnel know that discrimination and harassment are forbidden, how to recognize these 
offenses, how to file complaints, how to prevent reprisal, and that the rights of all involved will 
be protected. 

Effective Training Equal opportunity and human relations training should be incorporated into 
career development education for all personnel throughout their careers. In addition, persons 
involved in complaints handling should be given specialized training. Training for leaders and 
commanders should stress their personal involvement and accountability in the management of 
EOprogranis. 



Prompty Thorough and Fair Complaints Handling Discrimination complaints systems should 
provide for prompt resolution at the lowest appropriate level and be designed to prevent reprisals. 
In addition, support services should be made available to complainants and respondents as part of 
the complaints handling process. Finally, each proven offender should receive an appropriate 
sanction for the offense. 



An Overview of Maior Findings and Recommendations 

This report contains 48 recommendations for improving the Services* Equal Opportunity 
programs and discrimination complaints processing systems. Some of the recommended changes 
take the form of Department-wide standards for discrimination complaints processing. But while 
general principles and standards can often be shared across Service lines, the simple substitution 
of one Service's complaints processing system for another's is both undesirable and unworkable. 
Likewise, the imposition of one "ideal" system on the Services is unrealistic. There is no ideal 
system. The Military Services and their Reserve components are responsible for incorporating 
our recommended standards into their existing equal opportunity systems. 

We found that leadership commitment is the key to effective Equal Opportunity programs 
and discrimination complaints processing systems. Without the unequivocal support of 
commanders at all levels, our recommendations will have little impact. 

• The Services should hold senior officials accountable for equal opportunity by 
considering their issuance of policy guidance, creation of an organizational climate 
which fosters mutual respect, evaluation of EO in performance reports, and monitoring 
and reporting to ensure EO systems work. 

The Services vary widely in the ways they handle discrimination complaints. For 
instance, they use different timelines for processing formal complaints. The grades and lengths 
of assignments of equal opportunity personnel also vary. 

• While maintaining Service-specific systems, the Military Departments should execute 
the recommendations contained in this report, provide to the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness plans for implementation, and report at 
designated intervals on their progress. 

Department of Defense policy is clear about proscribing discrimination and sexual 
harassment. However, definitions of key terms, standards of proof, and timelines for complaint 
processing vary among the Services or are not stipulated. In addition, standards and definitions 
are subject to change. 

• The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) should clarify the definitions of key terms 
found in DoD Directive 1350.2. DoD Components should review all appropriate 
implementing documents and revise their definitions of key terms as necessary to 
conform with the DoD definitions. 



Each of the Services has established an equal opportunity and human relations education 
and training program that is conducted at entry points. Education for DoD senior leaders should 
stress their leadership responsibilities and provide information on the legal and organizational 
frameworks within which they operate. 

• Each Service and Reserve component should specify criteria for the qualifications and 
grades of personnel serving in EO billets. The Defense Equal Opportunity Management 
Institute (DEOMI) should continue to specify standards and develop training for 
personnel serving in EO billets. 

• DoD policy should require training for all commanders and civilian managers on their 
roles and responsibilities for EO programs, including discrimination complaint 
processing systems, reprisal detection and prevention, monitoring of subordinate EO 
climates, and managing civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) systems. 
Professional military education for both officers and non-commissioned officers should 
stress leaders' responsibility for effective Equal Opportunity programs. 

The principle of prompt, thorough and fair complaints handling ensures fair 
investigations, provides for resolution at the lowest appropriate level, prevents reprisals, and 
ensures the prompt resolution of complaints. We offer reconunendations on various aspects of 
complaints handling: identifying discrimination and sexual harassment, characteristics of 
informal and formal complaint processes, where to file a complaint, the complaint form, 
protection from reprisal, the conduct of investigations, timelines for investigations, fair and 
adequate investigations, legal sufficiency, consistent sanctions, feedback and follow-up, 
confidentiality of records and documentation, appeals, and support services. 

• Each Service should ensure that the chain of command remains an integral part of the 
processing and resolution of all complaints of discrimination and sexual harassment. 

• Each Service and Reserve component should establish toll-free or local helplines that 
provide information on behavior that constitutes discrimination and sexual harassment, 
how and where to file a complaint. 

• The Services should establish integrated and comprehensive complaint resolution 
systems for both informal and formal complaints and provide a central point of contact 
at the installation level, staffed with qualified and trained EO counselors. 

• The Services' discrimination complaint processing systems should contain specific 
reprisal prevention procedures and include guidance for commanders regarding the 
relocation or reassignment of complainants. 

• The Services should adopt standards for conducting complaint investigations which 
draw lipon criteria used by the DoD Inspector General. 



iv 



• DoD should require that all formal discrimination complaint cases are reviewed for 
legal sufficiency before final action is taken and before the complaint is closed. 

• The Services should ensure timely and periodic feedback to complainants and 
respondents regarding the status and outcome of complaints and should document 
formal complainants' satisfaction with the complaint process. 

• DoD should establish criteria for the appeal by complainants and respondents of 
formal discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. Final appeal procedures 
should be established within each Service at the level of the Service Secretary. 

• The Services should ensure that programs for counseling, information, referral, and 
other assistance are made available to Service members who have experienced 
discrimination or sexual harassment. 

The Reserve components are similar to, yet distinct from, their active-duty counterparts. 
We noted some obvious and some not-so-obvious differences between the active duty and 
Reserve settings that can affect the nature and effectiveness of sexual harassment and 
discrimination programs. For instance, violations of standards and instances of reprisal may 
occur across a combination of military and civilian statuses. Most members of the National 
Guard and Reserve are in a military status on a part-time basis. Some serve in a full-time status 
in support of the training, administration and readiness of the National Guard and Reserve. We 
concluded that a "Full-time values - part-time careers" perspective is required. Off-duty or non- 
duty behavior that impacts on the military workplace must be covered by discrimination and 
sexual harassment prevention programs in the National Guard and Reserve. 

• In the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are not serving in a full- 
time duty status, off-duty or non-duty behavior that affects the military workplace must 
be covered by discrunination and sexual harassment prevention programs in the 
National Guard and Reserve. 

Leaders of joint or multi-Service organizations are responsible for creating and sustaining 
environments free from discrimination and harassment, where individual Service members have 
the opportunity to excel. The same principles and standards required for effective EG complaint 
systems within the Military Services are applicable to EG complaint systems in joint commands 
and task forces, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Agencies and field activities. 

• Commanders of joint organizations and directors of Defense Agencies should establish 
discrimination and sexual harassment complaint procedures. 

• Commanders of joint organizations and directors of Defense Agencies should take 
corrective actions and issue administrative sanctions, if appropriate, in all cases of 
substantiated complaints within their organizations. 



V 



, An equal opportunity system that supports uniteffeetivefiess aWd ensure fairness to 
individuals wilUnhancemilitary readinessi^^EurtAier, these twin gdaJs^ will be fiilillled by 
complaints handling systems which uphold the principles we have identified: command 
commitmenj and accpuntability, Service dlistjynQtivenesSi cteiAty of policy; effective training, antf 
promirt, thpipughrpdliai^ itcomMiendatidnsrsimmaisized ibove are 

based on these principles. . . ^ r i : i tr 

According to DoD Directive 1350.2, illegal discrimination ine^ national origin, 

color, orrcjligion. • ■ -^^ - ^-'^ ■ . . = ... •■. ^- 

" See Charter at A|fpfendix? 3.' : ' : 'v.-.- -.yAiiul- . . , 



vi 



A. INTRODUCTION 



The national security of the United States relies on well trained, equipped and ready 
combat forces. The Military Services place enormous demands on their people. Military 
personnel may be exposed to danger, personal hardships, and the deprivation of individual 
freedoms. In order to execute their responsibilities, the men and women of the Military Services 
must function as a team, united by special bonds of trust, mutual respect, loyalty and shared 
sacrifice.^ Military culture is characterized by shared values and shared risks, identification with 
the military institution, and subordination of self. These qualities distinguish the military from 
other large organizations and form the context within which military equal opportunity policy 
and program recommendations must be understood. 

Discrimination and sexual harassment jeopardize combat readiness by weakening 
interpersonal bonds, fomenting distrust, eroding unit cohesion, and threatening good order and 
discipline. An organizational climate poisoned by bias sets member against member and 
undermines institutional allegiance. Readiness is supported by comprehensive and reliable 
systems for addressing human relations issues and for investigating and resolving discrimination 
complaints. Such systems provide a visible symbol of organizational commitment to equality 
and fair treatment, education and training, counseling support, and assistance to complainants 
when equal opportunity violations occur. 

Department of Defense (DoD) pohcy clearly proscribes discrimination and sexual 
harassment.^ The DoD strives to ensure it is an organization where every individual is able to 
contribute to his or her fullest potential in an atmosphere of respect and dignity.^ Furthermore, 
the Department, of necessity, is building a force which reflects the diversity of our nation. 

The composition of the U.S. military is a statement about what is possible in a multi- 
racial, multi-ethnic society. Most nations are multi-racial, and many nations are riven along lines 
of race, religion, or language. When the U.S. military is deployed, whether for warfighting or 
peacekeeping, it displays the possibility of overcoming those sources of division. It shows that 
diversity can be a source of strength. 

This report assesses policies and procedures for dealing with charges of discrimination 
and harassment within the Military Services. The report was called for by the Secretary and 
Deputy Secretary of Defense. Each had made clear his personal commitment to equal 
opportunity, and both had expressed concern about allegations that several recent cases of 
discrimination and harassment had been handled incompetently or insensitively ."^ 

The Secretary and Deputy Secretary asked the Secretary of the Air Force and the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to co-chair a task force that would: 



' See thoughts expressed by West Point cadets in Chris Black, "At West Point, charge unites the sexes," Boston 
Globe y November 3, 1994, p. 3. One commented: "We could die with these people. We have to trust these people. 
We have to meet a higher standard." 

2 See Appendix 1 and DoD Directive 1350.2 (in Volume II of this report). 
^ See Appendix 3. 

See Secretary of Defense memorandum, "Equal Opportunity (EO)," March 3, 1994 (Appendix 1); and Deputy 
Secretary of Defense memorandum, "Sexual Harassment Policy Plan," March 15, 1994. 



• review the Military Services' discrimination complaints systems, and 



• recommend Department-wide standards for discrimination complaints processing, where 
necessary, to ensure the fair and prompt resolution of complaints.^ 

The discrimination complaint processing systems currently used by the Military Services 
work well most of the time. The chain of command is effective in administering these systems; 
however, evidence of mishandling indicates that systemic improvements are warranted.^ 

Task Force Process 

We held a total of more than 20 formal meetings from May 13, 1994, through April 28, 
1995, and received briefings from representatives of the Military Departments, including their 
Reserve components. We heard from subject matter experts and several advocacy groups. We 
reviewed dozens of documents, policy papers, and studies. This report, the collective effort of 
senior civilian and nnilitary leaders of the Department of Defense, demonstrates our strong 
commitment to equal opportunity and fair treatment for all members of the Military Services. 

The work of our Task Force took place in a time of intensive scrutiny and change within 
the Military Services with respect to the understanding and handling of the issues of harassment 
and discrimination. During the course of our work, the Services instituted a significant number 
of changes in policy and procedure. As a result, many of our recommendations have akeady 
been adopted. 

Military discrimination and sexual harassment prevention programs evolve to keep pace 
with changes in public law, DoD and Service policies. In 1994, large efforts were akeady under 
way by the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force to improve their complaint processing 
procedures. The Coast Guard centralized the processing of all formal military complaints of 
discrimination and sexual harassment at the Department of Transportation level for enhanced 
effectiveness. In fact, significant improvements to complaint processing procedures and 
programs occurred while we met. A detailed description of current military discrimination and 
sexual harassment prevention programs is at Appendix 4. Several significant improvements are 
worth noting here: 

• The Army issued guidance to codify procedures for following up with complainants and 
to require commanders to develop plans to prevent reprisal. A foUow-up assessment will 
be conducted on all formal discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. The 
purpose of the assessment is to measure the effectiveness of actions taken to detect and 



^ See Secretary of the Air Force and Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) joint memorandum for 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, "Sexual Harassment Policy Plan," April 25, 1994 (Appendix 2). 
^ See Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of Military Department Investigations of 
Allegations of Discrimination by Military Personnel (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Inspector General, 
March 1994), pp. 2-3 (Appendix 10). Fourteen percent of the cases reviewed were found to be inadequately 
investigated. See also U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Sexual 
Harassment of Military Women and Improving the Military Complaint System, hearing held March 9, 1994, report 
H.A.S.C. No. 103-44, 103d Congress, 2nd session (Washington: U S. Government Printing Office, 1994). 



deter reprisal. The equal opportunity advisor presents the results of the assessment to the 
commander for appropriate action. 

• The Navy distributed fleet-wide a booklet titled "Resolving Conflict." The booklet 
provides guidelines for identifying levels of sexual harassment behavior and steps for 
resolving conflict informally. The Navy also implemented timelines for processing 
sexual harassment complaints; required sexual harassment training for flag officers, 
conmiand master chiefs, commanding officers, and executive officers; and developed a 
complaint form to be used as an alternative to Article 138 procedures for discrimination 
and sexual harassment complaints. The complaint form includes procedures for 
preventing reprisal, follov^-up and feedback timelines, and procedures for appeal or 
review of the complaint following command action. 

• The Marine Corps increased the number of equal opportunity advisors assigned to major 
installations from 16 to 22. The additional six EO advisors attended the fiiU 16-week 
resident training program conducted by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management 
Institute (DEOMI). Current guidance requires all new EO advisors to attend the 16-week 
DEOMI resident course. In addition, the Marine Corps strengthened its complaint 
processing procedures by instituting timelines for filing complaints, acting on complaints, 
and resolving complaints. The Marine Corps also established a requirement that 
complaint handlers request waivers for failing to meet the timelines. 

• Recently, the Air Force added 86 positions to its base-level equal opportunity staffs and 
mandated an additional four hours of human relations education for the entire force. The 
Air Force improved its complaints processing procedures by tightening timelines for 
complaint resolution, follow-up and feedback to complainants. The Air Force now 
requires senior installation commanders to review all closed cases to ensure that 
subordinate commanders have taken appropriate actions. A new Air Force pamphlet. 
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, describes each member*s roles and 
responsibilities. 

Our report is presented in two volumes. Volume I consists of the report and its associated 
appendices. The report contains recommendations intended to strengthen and modemize the 
Services' discrimination complaint procedures. Volume II contains a variety of background 
papers, including summaries of all of the briefings, a bibliography, and other background 
documents. 



Background 

The Military Services have made substantial progress in addressing equal opportunity 
issues ~ first with the ftill integration of African Americans and more recently with enhanced 
career opportunities for women.^ Nevertheless, the Military Services have experienced increases 



"7 See "Secretary of Defense Perry Approves Plans to Open New Jobs for Women in the Military " Department of 
Defense News Release No. 449-94, Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Washington, D.C., 
July 29, 1994; John F. Harris, "Army Opens 30,000 Jobs to Women," Washington Post, July 27, 1994, p. A5; and 



in reported incidents of discrimination and sexual harassment. The number of military equal 
opportunity complaints began a steady climb in 1987, reaching a high of 2,103 by 1992. These 
increases, which may represent a greater awareness of prohibited behavior and an increased 
willingness to trust the complaints processing system, have been cause for concern within the 
Services. 

The U.S. Armed Forces are not immune to social forces that affect our larger society. 
Racial and ethnic unrest, changing workplace demographics, economic insecurity, and class 
differences spill over to create tension within the Armed Services. In view of these social trends 
and a continued rise in reported equal opportunity complaints, Members of Congress and senior 
DoD leaders became increasingly concerned about the equal opportunity climate within the 
Services. In fact, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees required that this report be 
forwarded to Congress and that the approved recommendations be included in DoD and Service 
regulations.^ 

Throughout our nation's history, America has turned to its black citizens for manpower 
during military emergencies. However, it took Executive Order 9981, issued in 1948 by 
President Truman, and the military manpower requirements of the Korean War, to bring about 
the elimination of racially segregated military units. In response to racial unrest of the late 1960s 
and early 1970s, the Military Services instituted groundbreaking race relations education 
programs and procedures for redressing racial grievances.^ 

In the 1970s the Department developed policies and programs to expand the roles of 
women in the military. In the mid-1970s, women were admitted to the Service Academies and 
were allowed to hold noncombat occupations; they were no longer segregated in separate 
women's corps. Finally, the quota placed on women was removed. In the early 1980s, the 
Department issued its first policy on sexual harassment and the Services implemented sexual 
harassment prevention education programs. 1^ 

Prior to 1980, military affirmative action plan steps were linked to the Services' budgets. 
That is, each affirmative action plan step was developed with budget implications and the 
required funding. This ensured that affirmative action plans were not just paper programs and 
that assessment reports were driven by financial audit as well as programmatic audit. ^ > By the 
late 1980s, the budget linkage had been abandoned. Thus, today there are no DoD-wide, formal 
budget requirements with respect to staffing or conducting EO programs. 

The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity 
(ODASD[EO]) suffered staff reductions in the period 1980-1985, losing all but one of its 
military equal opportunity staff allocations. Reflecting the vicissitudes in high-level support for 



Les Aspin and Edwin Dom, "New Ground Combat Rules for Women " news briefing, January 13, 1994, Defense 
Issues, vol. 9, no. 1. 

^ U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995: Conference 
Report to Accompany S. 2182 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994), pp. 99-100, 
^ The Defense Race Relations Institute, which became the £>efense Equal Opportunity Management Institute in 
1 979, was established in 1 97 1 by DoD Directive 1 322, 11, 

See chronology in Volume II. 
^ ^ See Janice T. Adleman and Carleton D. Larkin, Functional Assessment of Military Equal Opportunity Staffs: 
Policy and Personnel Analysis, Vol. II (Vienna, VA: Logical Technical Services Corporation, June 1980), p. 13. 



equal opportunity, this office was reduced from 21 to four staff members in the period 1970 to 
1986. In 1986 the office was abolished, and its functions were divided among other offices. 
With this action, the Department of Defense lost its EO focal point. In the late 1970s, the Army 
abolished its full-time equal opportunity Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) and stopped 
assigning officers to installation EO offices. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense stopped intensive monitoring of the Services' 
Equal Opportunity programs through the budgetary and annual military equal opportunity 
assessment reporting process, and limited its feedback to the Services to informal staff contacts. 
As an alternative to an ODASD(EO), the Defense Equal Opportunity Council (DEOC) was 
established to review Equal Opportunity programs in 1986, but its operating method, which 
featured periodic meetings at the Service Assistant Secretary level, did not provide for high- 
profile pursuit of EO goals. 

In 1988, the Department of Defense conducted a survey of military personnel in all 
Services on the subject of sexual harassment. Sixty-four percent of all women surveyed and 17 
percent of all men reported that they had personally experienced sexual harassment in the year 
prior to the survey. Based upon these events, the Secretary of Defense decided to strengthen the 
Department's sexual harassment policy. In July 1991, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney 
issued a memorandum outlining a seven-point action program designed to eradicate sexual 
harassment. 

The policy message, however, did not appear to get through to everyone. The Tailhook 
Association's 35th annual symposium, held September 5-7, 1991, resulted in many allegations of 
sexual harassment and sexual assault and focused public and Congressional attention on these 
problems. 13 It was clear that there was still a wide gap between policy set in Washington and the 
attitudes and behaviors of individuals and small groups in the field. 

The witnesses who testified before the House Armed Services Committee on sexual 
harassment in the military in March 1994 called attention to the fact that problems persist. 
Testifying at those hearings, then- Assistant Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
Edwin Dom explained: 

The military services have averaged more than 1,500 sexual harassment 
complaints annually during the past couple of years. Most of them, about 800 a 
year in 1992 and 1993, have been substantiated. ... It is likely that for every 
reported incident, several others go unreported. 

Do these numbers suggest a pervasive problem? Frankly, I do not know. 
On the one hand, only a small proportion of the 200,000 women on active duty 
have registered formal complaints. On the other hand, survey data suggest that a 
very high percentage of military women have experienced sexual harassment. 



12 The Navy and Marine Corps never established EO career specialties. The Air Force has a career field for "Social 
Actions" personnel; Social Actions is a program which includes equal opportunity, drug and alcohol abuse. 

13 The Tailhook incident also demonstrated how people can confuse "sexual harassment" with "sexual assault." 
The former is an administrative offense, the latter, criminal. 

5 



What I can say with certainty is this: Sexual harassment is repugnant, it is illegal, 
and it undermines military effectiveness.*'^ 

On the racial front, the Department eliminated segregated, all-black units in the late 
1940s and early 1950s. In the mid-1950s and early 1960s, the Department searched for 
desegregated schools for the dependents of its Service members and fought to end discrimination 
in the rental of off-base housing to military personnel. In the mid-1960s the Department 
increased the accession rate of black officers; and in the late 1960s it fought against outbreaks 
of racial violence by establishing education programs and improving promotion opportunities for 
minorities. By the 1980s, many people thought that racial problems had been eliminated: 
Efforts were relaxed and emphasis on Equal Opportunity programs was diminished. 

But discrimination against black military personnel has not gone away. In 1991, Arthur 
Fletcher, then-Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, visited several U.S. military 
bases in Europe and concluded that the military was "rife'' with racism; he said that he had 
brought back hundreds of complaints indicating problems in the system of promotions, 
administration of justice under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and in the 
disproportionate impact of the drawdown on black military personnel. He also raised concerns 
about the DoD overseas school system and DoD civilian employees working overseas. In 1993, 
Mr. Fletcher visited U.S. military bases in the Pacific and stated that he found problems similar 
to those in Europe. 

Also in 1992, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
(NAACP) sent an investigatory team to Europe to follow up on the 1991 Fletcher trip and a 1971 
NAACP report on discrimination in the military.^'^ The group's report was released in 1994. It 
found, among other things, that the personality and disposition of the commander determines 
how objectively and fairly the discrimination complaint process is administered, as well as the 
nature of any corrective action; that fear of reprisal caused many military members to file their 
complaints with civil rights organizations, the Congress, or the President rather than use the 
military discrimination complaint process; that military EO personnel were ineffective because 
local commanders write their efficiency reports; and that the primary purpose of the Inspector 
General system was to prevent embarrassment to military commanders.*^ 

Therefore, problems persist. Part of the challenge in dealing with them is to isolate the 
aberrant behavior of individuals from true systemic deficiencies ~ and to resolve each 
appropriately. 



Edwin Dom, "Sexual Harassment: Illegal, Repugnant, Undermining," prepared statement to the House Armed 
Services Committee, March 9, 1994, Defense Issues, vol. 9, no. 17. 

See William Matthews, "Report Says U.S. Military is Rife with Discrimination," Air Force Times, September 23. 
1991. 

See Arthur A. Fletcher, "Results of Factfinding From European Trip: A Preliminary Report," National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), European Conference of Branches, August 1991; 
and Rick Rogers, "Fletcher: Racism Prevalent in Military," Pacific Stars and Stripes, March 13, 1993, p. 6. 
^'^ See NAACP, The Search for Military Justice: Report of an Inquiry into the Problems of the Negro Serviceman 
in West Germany (New York: NAACP Special Contribution Fund, April 1971). 

See National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Continuing the Search for Military 
Justice: NAACP*s Report on Discrimination in the Military and Defense School System in Germany (Baltimore, 
MD: January 1994). 

6 



The recommendations in this report pertain to the receipt and processing of 
discrimination complaints filed by members of the Armed Forces. Although we did not examine 
the Department's civilian discrimination complaint processing system, we recognize that 
uniformed and civilian personnel work together and share a common interest in the quality of the 
work environment. Typically, civilians who believe that they have been discriminated against or 
sexually harassed receive counseling and file complaints in accordance with a system established 
and monitored by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This applies 
whether the alleged discriminating official is a civilian or a member of a military Service. 
Service members who allege discrimination by civilians file discrimination complaints through 
the military complaint process of their individual Services. 



Goals for an Effective Equal Opportunitv System 

The military is not just another employer, and mihtary service is not just another job. The 
Armed Forces were established, uniquely, to carry out one of the few roles explicitly reserved to 
the Federal Government - that of defending the nation against foreign enemies. Every soldier. 
Sailor, airman and Marine is taught, from the first day of entry into service, that his or her 
individual needs will be subordinated to that essential role. Further, every entrant is taught that 
military service requires a high level of professional skill, a 24-hour-a-day commitment, a 
willingness to make personal sacrifices and perhaps to give the last full measure of devotion. 

Thus, military service is an uncommon profession that calls for people of uncommon 
dedication. A Service member^s first obligation is to fulfill his or her assigned military mission. 
Missions, however, are not assigned to individuals but to units, and the success of missions 
depends in large measure on the degree of trust and understanding that exists among people in 
the units. Military personnel often find themselves in situations where a moment's hesitation - a 
second of doubt about another member of the team ~ can mean disaster. 

This recognition of the special character of the military and of military service led us to 
identify two overarching goals for the equal opportunity program of the Department of Defense: 

• Unit Effectiveness In order to execute their responsibilities, the men and women of the 
Military Services must function as a team, unified by special bonds of trust, mutual 
respect, loyalty, and shared sacrifice. Shared values and shared risks, identification 
with the military institution, and subordination of self characterize the military culture 
and distinguish it from other large institutions. Commanders are responsible for 
creating and sustaining effective units. To do so, they must eliminate discrimination 
and harassment because these offenses undercut the special qualities that are essential 
to unit effectiveness. 

• Individual OpDortunitv and Fairness Individual members of the Military Services 
must have the opportunity to excel in an environment free fi-om discrimination and 
harassment. The Human Goals charter of the Department of Defense states: "Our 
nation was founded on the principle that the individual has infinite dignity and worth. 



7 



The Department of Defense . . . must always be guided by this principle."^^ Our Equal 
Opportunity programs, including our discrimination complaint processing systems, 
must be based on a goal of individual opportunity in order to uphold the principles 
upon which this country was founded - the principles which our military is charged to 
defend. 

Equal Opportunity programs which ensure unit effectiveness and individual opportunity 
enhance military readiness. These goals should be outlined in DoD and Service policy directives 
and should form the basis for effective Equal Opportunity programs and discrimination 
complaint processes. 



Principles for an Effective Equal Opportunity System 

We identified five principles which should underlie the workings of successful Equal 
Opportunity programs for the Military Services in order to fulfill these goals. Our 
recommendations are consistent with each of these essential principles. 

(1) Command Commitment and Accountability One distinctive feature of military life is the 
ubiquitous nature of command accountability. The commander is held responsible for everything 
the unit does or fails to do, and for the welfare of every Service member and family member. 
The commander is not just the head of a mission-driven organization; he or she also is the head 
of a community. The commander is held accountable for the performance of the unit and also for 
the climate within the unit. One example may clarify the difference between accountability in 
the military and accountability in most civilian environments: When a civilian is seriously 
injured off the job, his or her supervisor eventually would be notified and might visit the 
hospital; in contrast, when a soldier is injured "off the job," the conmiander is one of the first 
people notified — even before the family - and is expected to take appropriate action to ensure 
that the soldier and the family are attended to properly. 

Obviously, a commander cannot be everywhere and cannot personally oversee 
everything. Instead, commanders delegate specific tasks to subordinates or specialists. Often, 
commanders retain immediate, personal responsibility for those things for which they will be 
personally rated or which they know to be important to their own commanders. Service 
members pay close attention to which programs commanders take personal interest in, and those 
which commanders delegate - and, in a sense, relegate - to staff. These choices are Service 
members' clues about commanders' priorities. 

Commanders' demonstrated leadership and commitment to equal opportunity must be 
visible and unequivocal. Further, commanders are expected to communicate standards of 
professional conduct and build an organizational culture where members are valued, respected, 
and treated fairly. Military leaders are entrusted with primary responsibility for the welfare of 
the people under their command. Leaders are responsible for establishing the organizational 
climate in which everyone is treated with dignity and respect, providing an environment in which 
individual members can excel, ensuring fair treatment, and demonstrating commitment to shared 



See Charter at Appendix 3. 



8 



core values. Leaders must be actively involved in Equal Opportunity programs, regularly 
monitor the command climate, take responsibility for the climate within their command, and 
review the adequacy of complaint investigations. When violations are substantiated, leaders 
must take prompt and appropriate actions to enforce the Department's and the Services' policies. 

Commanders must be able to take necessary actions and make appropriate decisions on 
personnel matters without undue concern about the personal consequences of possible EO 
complaints. This requires an effective complaint handling system in which all have a high 
degree of confidence. On the other hand, they will be held accountable for their actions and for 
the actions of those they command both for incidents that occur as well as any charges of 
reprisal. 

The most effective way of ensuring accountability in military organizations is to give 
commanders the direct responsibility for managing the discrimination complaints system and 
hold them accountable for their actions. In fact, we believe that it is imperative that we make the 
chain of command work /or Service members and against discrimination and sexual harassment 
in the U.S. Armed Forces.^o 

Clearly, the active and vigorous support of leaders at all levels is the foundation for a 
positive unit climate and an effective equal opportunity program. The Secretary of Defense, as 
the senior leader in the Department of Defense, is responsible for establishing overall EO 
standards and for overseeing the implementation of those standards. The U.S. Congress also 
plays an important oversight role with respect to EO and other human relations programs in the 
Services. 



(2) Service Distinctiveness The Secretary of Defense must establish certain goals, principles 
and standards of performance. However, the Military Services differ in their missions, command 
structures, operating conditions, and traditions. These differences are reflected in all of their 
programs, including their discrimination complaint processes. Any changes made to those 
processes will be effective only if they are incorporated into existing Service training programs, 
investigatory procedures, disciplinary structures, and command responsibilities. One of the 
critical judgments we made involved deciding when to impose Department-wide standards and 
when to allow for Service distinctiveness. While general principles and standards can often be 
shared across Service lines, the simple substitution of one Service's complaints process for 
another's is both undesirable and unworkable. 



(3) Clarity of Policy Clear and concise written policies are necessary to ensure that military 
personnel know that discrimination and harassment are forbidden, how to recognize these 
offenses, how to file complaints, and how the rights of all involved will be protected. 
Discrimination and sexual harassment complaint procedures should ensure fair treatment of all 



20 The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWrrS), in a recent trip report, argues: "The 
installations where women have the most confidence in the system regarding sexual harassment complaints are 
those where the command has taken a strong stand, the rules are clear and programs are in place so that there is 
feedback on the status of a complaint the investigation, the resolution, the disciplinary action taken once a 
complaint has been resolved." DACOWITS, "Overseas Trip Report: July 9-23, 1994," p. 3. 

9 



members of the organization. Service members should have unrestricted access to complaint 
channels. There must be specific, written policies that define discrimination and sexual 
harassment and give examples of offensive behaviors. When violations are alleged, policies and 
procedures should ensure fair treatment for all parties. Policies must specifically proscribe 
reprisal against complainants, establish and monitor grievance systems, and disseminate 
information on victim support programs and resources. Each commander should ensure that 
complaint procedures are clear. 

(4) Effective Training Each year, 200,000 young men and women join the active force. Every 
year, roughly one third of the 1.5 million people on active duty change jobs. Given the dynamic 
nature and high mobility of the DoD workforce, education and training are essential to ensure 
that equal opportunity policies and procedures are clear to all. Training should also strive for 
long-term culture change by focusing on values, support networks, teamwork, fairness and 
responsibility. Professional military education for both officers and non-commissioned officers 
should stress their leadership responsibilities as well as provide information on the legal and 
organizational framework within which they operate. 

Equal opportunity and human relations training should be incorporated into career 
development education for all personnel throughout the career life cycle. In addition, persons 
involved in complaints handling should be given specialized training. Further, training for 
leaders and commanders should stress personal involvement and accountability. 

(5) Prompts Thorough and Fair Complaints Handling Discrimination complaint systems 
should be designed to ensure the prompt and thorough resolution of complaints, to protect the 
rights of all involved, to provide for resolution at the lowest appropriate level, and to prevent 
reprisals. 

Leaders must adequately safeguard against reprisal and ensure that allegations are 
promptly, thoroughly and fairly investigated. Complaint systems should provide options for both 
formal and informal resolution of allegations based on the seriousness of an incident and the 
wishes of the complainant. Formal complaint procedures should adhere to standards that ensure 
complaints are investigated promptly by personnel sufficiently trained to accomplish thorough, 
impartial inquiries. Procedures must ensure that complainants and respondents are kept fully 
informed about the progress in resolving their complaint through regular feedback and that there 
is follow-up with the complainant to detect and deter reprisal. 

In addition, support services should be available to complainants and respondents as part 
of the complaint handling process. We must also develop support systems which act towards 
making victims of discrimination or harassment "whole.*' Finally, each offender should receive 
an appropriate sanction for the offense. 



10 



B. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



Over the course of several months in a series of more than 20 meetings - we heard 
briefings from representatives of the Mihtary Departments, subject matter experts, and several 
advocacy groups. We reviewed dozens of documents, policy papers, and pertinent studies. 
Ultimately, we determined, only complaints processing systems which ensure both unit 
effectiveness and faimess to individuals will enhance military readiness. These twin goals will 
be fulfilled by complaints handling systems which uphold the principles of command 
commitment and accountability, Service distinctiveness, clarity of policy, effective training, and 
prompt, thorough and fair complaints handling. The recommendations discussed below are 
based on these principles and reflect our consensus. 



1. Command Commitment and Accountability 

A basic principle which underlies the workings of successful Equal Opportunity (EO) 
programs is conunand commitment and accountability. Commanders' demonstrated leadership 
and conunitment to EO must be visible and unequivocal. Further, commanders are expected to 
communicate standards of professional conduct and to build an organizational culture where 
members are valued, respected, and treated fairly. 

Leadership visibility, initiative, and commitment are essential for achieving the goals we 
have outlined for the Department of Defense. Military leaders at all levels of the organization 
are responsible for creating a climate within their units which fosters mutual respect in all unit 
members. They are also accountable for ensuring that their organizations comply with the spirit 
and letter of equal opportunity policies, directives, guidance, and regulations. 

For years, both military and political leaders have recognized that when they fail to 
support policies forcefully and publicly, those policies will also fail. In the wake of the 1991 
Tailhook conference. Representatives Les Aspin and Beverly Byron undertook a study in which 
they found that leadership commitment was a critical factor in successfully effecting two 
significant cultural changes in the Armed Forces: racial integration and the elimination of drug 
use. They argued that, in the 1990s, leadership commitment will be the key to successfully 
ridding the Department of sexual harassment.^' 

The importance of leadership visibility, initiative and commitment was discussed 
throughout our deliberations. For instance. Major General Amold, Assistant Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Personnel, USA, stressed that decisive action by leaders, not just a passive attitude of 
fair-mindedness, is what produces faimess. Without the unequivocal support of commanders, 
our recommended standards will have little impact. 

One distinctive feature of military life is the ubiquitous nature of command 
accountability. The commander is responsible for everything the unit does or does not do and for 
the welfare of every Service member and military family. The conunander is not just the head of 



2^ Les Aspin and Beverly Byron, Women in the Military: The Tailhook Affair and the Problem of Sexual 
Harassment (U.S. Congress. House Armed Services Committee: September 1992), 



11 



a mission-driven organization; he or she also is the head of a community. The commander 
accounts for the performance of the unit as well as the climate within the unit. During and after 
an investigation into a discrimination complaint, a unit's atmosphere might become poisoned. It 
is particularly important that the commander restore to wholeness anyone damaged by the 
process - complainants, witnesses, or those wrongly accused of discrimination. 

Obviously, a commander cannot be everywhere and cannot personally oversee 
everything. Instead, commanders delegate specific tasks to subordinates or specialists. 
Commanders tend to retain personal responsibility for those things on which they will be rated or 
that they know to be important to their own commanders. Service members pay close attention 
to the programs commanders take personal interest in as opposed to those commanders delegate - 
- and, in a sense, relegate - to staff. These choices are Service members' clues about 
commanders' priorities. 

Accountability begins at the senior level; the prevention and elimination of discrimination 
and sexual harassment can best be achieved by an effective chain of command.22 The Secretary 
of Defense demands certain standards of conduct. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 
monitors the Services' EO programs by reviewing their annual Military Equal Opportunity 
Assessments. Historically, Congress has exercised its oversight role through staff-level briefings 
from the Services' on the status of their EO programs. 

In order to ensure accountability throughout the chain of command, commanders must 
evaluate their subordinate commanders on their ability to create a positive and supportive climate 
and to prevent and eliminate discrimination and sexual harassment within their units. Also, in 
order to achieve the goal of individual opportunity and fairness, the responsibility, accountability 
and commitment to eliminate discriniination must be placed with the chain of command where 
personnel selections and evaluations are made. The recommendations provided in this section 
focus on how to ensure compliance and hold leadership at all levels accountable. 

What indicators should the Services consider in evaluating the efforts of commanders at 
all levels? There are at least five very clear indicators: issuance of policy guidance, creation of 
an organizational climate which fosters mutual respect, evaluation of EO in performance reports, 
monitoring and reporting to ensure EO systems work, and full use of existing resources, such as 
EO climate surveys. 



Issuance of Policy Guidance 

Through the years, senior DoD leaders have made known their support for Equal 
Opportunity programs. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and more recently, Secretaries 
Weinberger, Carlucci, Cheney, and Perry have each published strong policy statements 



22 See DACOWITS, "Overseas Trip Report: July 9-23, 1994." See also Francis X. Clines, "5 Army Cadets Face a 
Charge of Harassment," New York Times, November 1, 1994. p. 1. Clines quotes an Army captain who states, "I 
see progress here. I probably would not have been brave enough to report this in my day, because I wouldn't have 
had confidence in the cadet chain of command." 



expressing support for DoD's EO programs.23 in a March 3, 1994, policy memorandum 
outlining steps to strengthen EO programs, Secretary Perry declared that *'Equal opportunity is . . 
. a military and an economic necessity." Further, he stated that he "will not tolerate 
discrimination or harassment of or by any Department of Defense employee."24 On August 22, 
1994, Secretary Perry signed another policy memorandum prohibiting sexual harassment in the 
Department of Defense. This policy statement applied to both Service members and civilian 
employees, updated the Department's definition of sexual harassment by incorporating language 
from a Supreme Court decision, and directed the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to 
carry out an eleven-point program. These memoranda replaced die policies of past Secretaries. 
A strong conunitment to EO programs and goals must flow through every echelon of command. 
Senior leadership's strong support inspires compliance with the spirit and letter of EO directives 
and regulations. 

Recommendation 

1 . The Secretary and senior military official of each Military Department should publish EO 
policy statements which include an expression of the institution's commitment to equal 
opportunity and a statement that complainants will have legal protection from reprisal.- 
Each Service should require commanders, at all levels, to post prominently departmental 
and command EO policy statements including guidance on how and where to complain. 

Creation of an Organizational Climate which Fosters Mutual Respect 

Commanders play two complementary but distinct roles. As individuals, they should 
strive to set a personal example of decency, fairness, and support for EO programs. As 
representatives of the Service, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Government, they have a 
special responsibility to exhibit leadership and initiative within their organizations to ensure that 
all personnel are treated fairly and that their organization effectively deals with issues that 
arise.25 

Commanders also play an important role in empowering individuals in their units to take 
direct actions to improve unit climate and respond to incidents when they occur. Bystanders can 
play an important role in counseling individuals at the time an incident or misunderstanding 
occurs and can set the stage for quick, positive resolution. 

Commanders have a variety of tools to assess organizational climate. For example, the 
Services have developed surveys designed to identify perceptions about human relations, fair 
treatment, and discrimination. The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) 



23 On file in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Equal Opportunity), Pentagon, Washington, 
Appendix 1. 

25 A recent report of the House Armed Services Committee states: "The commitment of leadership to equal 
opportunity appeared to be the most significant determinant of the racial climate at every facility. . . . Where 
leadership was viewed as having a strong, sincere commitment, problems were fewer and differences in perspectives 
were less notable, particularly where such leadership had significant tenure at the facility.*' U.S. Congress, House of 
Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, "Interim Report to the Chairman by the Task Force on Equality of 
Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services," July 1, 1994, pp. 1-2. 

13 



developed the Military Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (MEOCS) to be administered to 
personnel in all the Services. The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) is in the process of 
administering a survey on sexual harassment for administration DoD-wide and will soon conduct 
a survey on race relations. These chmate surveys provide confidential information to 
commanders about conditions in their units. 

Climate surveys signal concern about organizational environment. But, Service 
requirements for commanders to conduct climate surveys vary. Currently, the Navy requires 
annual climate surveys at the unit level.26 The Marine Corps strongly encourages its unit 
commanders to conduct climate surveys annually. Both the Navy and Marine Corps conduct 
Service-wide climate surveys biennially. The Air Force surveys its units six months after a 
change of command and biennially thereafter. 

RecommendaHons 

2. The Services should strongly encourage commanders to conduct periodic equal 
opportunity climate assessments. 

3. The Services should hold senior officials accountable for the equal opportunity climates in 
their comn[iands. 



Evaluation of EO in Performance Reports 

Evaluating personnel on the basis of their positive achievements and leadership will 
encourage positive actions. Periodic review, feedback, and evaluation of performance are also 
useful tools for holding individuals accountable for their actions. To varying degrees, the 
Military Departments require comments on commitment to equal opportunity in officer and 
noncommissioned officer evaluation reports. Army and Navy officer and enlisted evaluation 
reports require specific comments on performance in equal opportunity. Marine Corps and Air 
Force officer and enlisted evaluation reports do not require specific remarks on performance in 
equal opportunity, but expect equal opportunity performance to be reflected in the categories of 
**judgment," "leadership,*' "professional qualities," "cooperation," and "personal relations," 
Coast Guard officer and enlisted evaluation reports require specific comments on equal 
opportunity performance in the categories of "working with others," "respecting others," and 
"human relations." 

A review of performance reports indicates that the vast majority of commanders receive 
high marks for EO. We beheve this is a fair reflection of objective reality: Most commanders 
take EO seriously. Current performance ratings suggest that most Service members also take 
their EO responsibilities seriously. The challenge is to ensure that the small number of persons 
who violate EO policy and regulations are identified and held accountable. 



26 Soon, the Navy will require climate assessments at the unit level within six months of assuming command and 
annually thereafter. In addition, the current chmate assessment will become a required tum-over item. 

14 



We decided not to set a threshold for documenting incidents on performance reports but 
determined that commanders should be given considerable latitude to exercise judgment in 
reflecting their importance. Minor incidents might best be handled through counseling, 
benefiting both the unit and the individuals involved. Repeated or serious incidents should be 
reflected in performance reports, and commanders have been disciplined for failing to do this. 

Recommendation 

4. The Services should direct that all rating and reviewing officials be required to evaluate a 
member's commitment to elimination of unlawful discrimination and/or sexual 
harassment and to document significant deviations from that commitment in evaluation 
reports. 



Monitoring and Reporting to Ensure EO Systems Work 

Another dimension of accountability is to ensure the system and its procedures are 
functioning as intended. Enhanced discrimination complaint data collection and reporting are 
essential to give leadership an understanding of the effectiveness of DoD and Service efforts to 
educate and train personnel, to identify specific problem areas, and to initiate corrective actions. 

The Advisory Board on the Investigative Capability of the Department of Defense found 

that: 

The Services have differing requirements for the amount and type of data 
that must be reported regarding complaints of sexual harassment. The Army has 
a system that maintains data on the results of investigations, actions taken to 
resolve the complaint, and categories of complaints. The Navy and the Marine 
Corps have a system called the discrimination and sexual harassment (DASH) 
reporting system. Unlike the Army's system, the Navy's and Marine Corps' 
system contains very detailed information including a narrative of the incident. 
The system requires reporting regarding how the formal complaint was made, for 
example, whether it was by request mast, Article 138 complaint, IG hotline, or 
some other vehicle. It also requires detailed personal and military information 
regarding the recipient and alleged offender. . . . 

The Air Force's system . . . reports the total number of complaints, number 
of complaints resolved, demographics of the personnel involved, type of 
discrimination. Air Force specialty code and rank of the complainant and alleged 
offender, whether the discrimination was substantiated or unsubstantiated, and 
actions taken by the commander.^^ 

Enhanced data collection and reporting would clearly improve the Department's efforts to deal 
with complaints of discrimination and sexual harassment systematically. 



^'^ See Report of the Advisory Board on the Investigative Capability of the Department of Defense, Vol. I 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1994), p. 152. 

15 



Recommendations 



5. OSD should establish uniform data elements, require that the Services use those elements 
in reporting, and create an easily accessible OSD database on formal discrimination 
complaints.28 Those standard data elements should include information similar to data 
now collected by the Services such as the grade, sex, race/ethnic background, component 
and duty status, and duty specialty of both the complainant and the accused, the basis and 
nature of the complaint, the actions taken, and number of complaints unresolved after 60 
days. 

6. Data on Military discrimination complaints should be collected and reported by the 
Services in accordance with procedures established in DoD Directive 1350.2 and DoD 
Instruction 1350.3. 



2. Service Distinctiveness 

The Department of Defense must establish certain goals, principles, and standards of 
performance. However, the Services differ in mission, organization, and culture. Equal 
opportunity programs in the individual Military Services will be effective only if they are 
incorporated into existing Service training and education programs, investigatory structures and 
procedures, disciplinary structures, and command responsibilities. Therefore the specifics of 
implementation of our reconmiendations will, in many instances, vary by Service. 

We received a series of presentations from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, 
National Guard Bureau, Coast Guard, and the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 
(DEOMI) which compared and contrasted many aspects of Service programs.29 These briefings 
confirmed that there is wide variance in the Services' discrimination complaints processes and 
that these differences reflect the way the Services operate. For example, the Army and Air Force 
operate primarily from large, fixed installations with large support staffs and infiastnictures. As 
a result, the Army has developed centralized EO programs with decentralized, unit-level 
management. The Air Force has developed centrally managed EO programs. Both Services 
encourage informal complaint resolution, but rely on formal complaint programs. In contrast, the 
Navy and Marine Corps operate from ships at sea and from small, self-contained, expeditionary 
units with minimum support staffs. The Navy and Marine Corps' EO programs are 
decentralized. 

Since we began our deliberations in May 1994, the Services have made a number of 
improvements in their complaint processes. Most notably, the Navy and Marine Corps have 
enhanced their formal complaint processes, making them similar to those used by the Army, Air 
Force, and National Guard. 



28 The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Requirements and Resources is developing standard data elements in 
order to expedite reporting in a number of areas. 

29 The briefing slides are on file in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Equal Opportunity), 
Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 



16 



We have prepared a matrix which compares various parts of the EO programs of the 
Services.30 It is important to note that substitution of individual program elements across 
Services will not necessarily produce an improved or even a workable EO program. The 
regulations and procedures governing Army and Air Force programs will not work for the Navy 
and the Marine Corps; nor will the Navy and Marine Corps' operating instructions suffice for the 
Army and the Air Force. 

While the simple substitution of one Service's complaints process for another's is both 
undesirable and unworkable, general principles and standards can be shared across Service lines. 
One of our critical judgments involved deciding when to impose Depaitment-wide standards and 
when to allow for Service distinctiveness. Our charge was to establish basic principles for 
complaints handling, assess existing policies and practices, and recommend whatever changes 
might be necessary to ensure the fair and prompt resolution of complaints. "Standards, not 
standardization" became our paradigm. Thus, we set standards but avoided standardization. 

Recommendation 

7. The Military Departments should implement and comply fully with the recommendations 
contained in this report, provide to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness a plan for implementation, and report at designated intervals on their progress. 

3. Clarity of Policv 

The statutes which prohibit discrimination against Federal civilian employees on the basis 
of race, color, religion, sex or national origin do not apply to members of the Armed Forces. 
Instead, Department of Defense and Service policy, implemented in DoD Directives and Service 
regulations, prohibit discrimination and sexual harassment and prescribe procedures and 
remedies for dealing with them. In some instances, the acts which constitute discrimination or 
sexual harassment also are punishable as crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Department of Defense policy is clear about proscribing discrimination and sexual 
harassment. Still, the implementing specifics are not clear. There are two problems: 1) 
definitions of key terms, standards of proof, and timelines for complaint processing vary among 
the Services or are not stipulated; and 2) standards and definitions are subject to change. For 
example, in August 1994 DoD modified its definition and conceptualization of sexual 
harassment to conform to the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Forklifi Systems, 
Inc. The DoD definition of sexual harassnaent was clarified to indicate that woikplace conduct, 
to be actionable as "abusive work environment" harassment, need not result in concrete 
psychological harm to the victim, but rather need only be so severe or pervasive that a reasonable 
person would, and the victim does, perceive the work environment as hostile or abusive.^i 

Equal opportunity policies, including discrimination complaint processing procedures, 
should be viewed as ensuring fair treatment of all members of the organization. Clear and 



Appendix 4. 

"Workplace" is an expansive term for Service members and may include conduct on or off duty, 24 hours a day. 

17 



concise written policies are necessary to ensure that complaint procedures protect the rights of 
commanders/supervisors, complainants, respondents, and co-workers. Equal opportunity 
programs should provide for unrestricted access to complaint channels. There must be specific, 
written policies that define discrimination and sexual harassment and which give examples of 
offensive behavior. When violations are alleged, policies and procedures should ensure fair 
treatment for all parties. Policies must specifically proscribe reprisal against complainants, 
establish and monitor grievance systems, and disseminate information on victim support 
programs and resources. Each commander should ensure that complaint procedures are clear. 

The Department must recruit from the largest possible pool of young Americans in order 
to ensure that it can continue to field the best possible force. Today's force draws from a number 
of ethnic, racial, regional, and religious groups. In order to manage this rich mix of Service 
members, the Department has developed policies and procedures which produce a uniform, 
unified team - a team whose combined strength far outweighs the sum of individuals' attributes. 
The Department of Defense policy is specific with regard to equal opportunity. It is DoD policy 
that discrimination, which includes sexual harassment, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. 
DoD strives to ensure it is an organization where every individual is free to contribute to his or 
her fullest potential in an atmosphere of respect and dignity. 

On July 26, 1948, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which declared that 
there should be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the U.S. Armed Forces 
without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. From 1948 to 1954, the Department of 
Defense worked to eliminate racially segregated units fi-om its ranks; the last all-black unit was 
eliminated in October 1954. Over the years, the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense have issued over 30 directives, instructions, and memoranda prohibiting 
discrimination and promoting equal opportunity. Most of those statements were then 
supplemented by implementing guidance from the Military Departments. Some of the OSD 
policy statements focused on a single topic, such as the integration of schools on military 
installations or the participation of military personnel in civil rights demonstrations. Other 
statements established either specific programs, such as nondiscrimination in off-base housing or 
broader equal opportunity programs, to fight against race and sex discrimination.^^ 

The first DoD Directive on the subject of equal opportunity in the military was issued on 
July 26, 1963 (before passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), by Secretary of Defense Robert 
McNamara. It established DoD policy "to conduct all of its activities in a manner which is free 
from racial discrimination, and which provides equal opportunity for all uniformed members and 
all civilian employees irrespective of their color.*' It also stated that: 

Discriminatory practices directed against Armed Forces members, all of whom 
lack a civilian's freedom of choice in where to live, to work, to travel and to 
spend his off-duty hours, are harmful to military effectiveness. Therefore, all 
members of the Department of Defense should oppose such practices on every 
occasion, while fostering equal opportunity for servicemen and their families, on 
and off-base.33 



See Chronology in Volume II of this report. 
3^ DoD Directive 5120.36, "Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces/* July 26, 1963, Section I, p. 1. 



18 



The directive made the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) responsible for 
promoting equal opportunity for members of the Armed Forces by giving direction to programs 
which promote equal opportunity; providing policy guidance and reviewing policies, regulations, 
and manuals of the Military Departments; and monitoring the performance of the Military 
Departments through periodic reports and visits to field installations. What the directive lacked 
was specificity. It did not indicate what elements comprised an Equal Opportunity program, 
what should be included in Service reports, or what would be examined during base visits. It did 
not do so partly because no one in the military had previous experience with "equal opportunity" 
programs and could not be expected to articulate comprehensive programs. It also did not do so 
partly because the Services wanted to implement their own programs. 

Subsequent DoD directives or instructions were issued in 1963, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1971, 
1973, 1976, 1978, 1987, and 1988. Each revision built upon the previous documents and added 
one or more new concerns to be incorporated into the overall EO program. The Department's 
record indicates a willingness to face problems as they emerged and to craft meaningful 
programs. 

Over the past 15 years, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has also issued 
about 10 statements or revisions to directives dealing with sexual harassment. As with the 
discrimination policies, these have been supplemented by additional guidance from the Services. 
Some of the statements focus on military personnel, others deal with all DoD employees, and 
still others extend to contractors. Four of the most recent OSD policy statements are: 

• DoD Directive 1350.2, "The Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity 
Program," issued December 23, 1988, defines and clearly prohibits sexual harassment 
and discrimination. 

• DoD Instruction 1350.3, "Affirmative Action Planning and Assessment Process," 
issued February 29, 1988, gives specific instructions on the monitoring and annual 
reporting of data on discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. Each Service 
incorporates this guidance into its own specific implementing regulations. 

• A July 12, 1991, memorandum from then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outlined a 
seven-point action program designed to eradicate sexual harassment. Each DoD 
Component was directed, among other things, to issue clear policy statements 
annually that explain sexual harassment and reaffmn that it will not be tolerated; to 
train people how to identify and prevent sexual harassment, with specific emphasis on 
harassment by co-workers; to investigate promptly and thoroughly and to resolve 
every sexual harassment complaint; and to inform DoD personnel that failure to 
comply with the sexual harassment guidelines will be reflected in their annual 
performance ratings and fitness reports. 

• A March 3, 1994, memorandum from Secretary Perry, laid out a five-point plan 
designed to strengthen the Department's EO programs. This memorandum re- 
established the office of the DASD (EO), restructured the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Council, launched a study of the officer "pipeline," encouraged greater use of career 

19 



development programs to improve representation of women and minorities among 
DoD's civilian management, and called for the development of special EO training 
seminars for senior leaders. 



It is a military imperative that clear and sound DoD policies ensure the prohibition of 
discrinriination, as well as an accurate assessment of the nature and scope of discriminatory 
activity within DoD. The DoD IG found that the lack of clear and consistent DoD definitions 
complicates analysis and reporting.34 The DoD IG found no standard definitions for any type of 
discrimination, except for sexual harassment, within the DoD. As a result, anything from an 
isolated instance of "name calling'' to arbitrary personnel actions based on sex or race could be 
labeled and reported as discrimination. 

The DoD Directive 1350.2 defines the terms "sexual harassment" and "discrimination.''35 
All of the Services use the directive's definition for sexual harassment. However, none of the 
Services uses the directive's definition for "discrimination." The Army defines "institutional" 
discrimination, the Air Force defines "institutional," "arbitrary," and "personal" discrimination, 
and the Navy and Marine Corps have different definitions for the same term - "discrimination" - 
- all of which could lead to different legal interpretations. According to the various definitions 
by the Services, discrimination may be one or more of the following:^^ 

• different treatment based on race, gender, etc. (Army), 

• depriving an individual of a right (Air Force), 

• denying an individual equal opportunity (Marine Corps), 

• denying an individual equal treatment (Navy), 

• any action that unlawfully or unjustly results in unequal treatment (Air Force), and 

• using terms to degrade or infer negative statements pertaining to race, gender, etc. 
(Air Force). 

The lack of standard definitions creates the situation where an action or offense could be 
considered "discrimination" in one Service, but not in another. 

The lack of standard terms affects the reporting and analysis of discrimination complaint 
data. For instance, the Air Force uniquely defines as discrimination the use of any term that 
"degrades or infers negative statements" pertaining to age, color, national origin, race, ethnic 
group, religion, or sex. The DoD IG found six Air Force cases where using the term "bitch" 
once was investigated, substantiated, and statistically reported as discrimination. The available 
documentation suggested that the other Services treat similar conduct as inappropriate or 
unprofessional behavior, but would not routinely label or report such conduct as 
"discrimination." 

Additionally, DoD Directive 1350.2 does not define the term "reprisal," although it is 
defined within DoD Directive 7050.6 (Military Whistleblower Protection). 



Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of Military Department Investigations. 
See DoDD 1 350.2 in Volume II of this report. 

Appendix 5 contains the complete definitions for "discrimination" published by each Service. 

20 



Finally, briefings to the Task Force by each of the Military Services emphasized the 
importance of the informal receipt and resolution of complaints as an alternative to the filing of 
formal complaints of discrimination. DoD Directive 1350.2 does not provide for an informal 
complaints resolution process, nor does it define the terms "formal complaint" and "informal 
complaint." 



Recommendations 

8. OSD should clarify the definition of "discrimination" found in DoD Directive 1350.2. 
The Military Departments should review all appropriate implementing documents and 
revise their definitions of "discrimination," whenever necessary, to conform with the 
DoD definition. 

9. The Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum on sexual harassment on August 22, 
1994, which modifies the existing definition as contained within DoD Directive 1350.2. 
OSD should revise that directive to use the modified definition, and the Military 
Departments should revise definitions in all implementing documents to conform to the 
new definition. 

10. OSD should revise DoD Directive 1350.2 to define the terms "complainant," "informal 
complaint " "formal complaint," "reprisal," "legal sufficiency," and "protected 
communication;" and the Military Departments should revise definitions in all 
implementing documents to conform to the new definitions. 

4. Effective Training 

Given the dynamic nature and high mobility of the DoD workforce, education and 
training are essential to ensuring that the equal opportunity policies, expectations, and procedures 
are clear to all and are consistently reinforced. Training should also strive for long-term culture 
change by focusing on values, support networks, teamwork, fairness and responsibility. Equal 
opportunity and human relations training should be incorporated into career development 
education for all personnel throughout the career life cycle. Specifically, training for leaders and 
commanders should stress personal involvement and accountability. 

The Department of Defense Directive 1350.2 outlines policy, responsibilities, and 
requirements for equal opportunity and human relations education and training, including the 
prevention of sexual harassment, within the Department. The Department's policy is to provide 
education and training in EO and human relations. The heads of DoD Components are 
responsible for ensuring that education and training programs are executed. The requirements 
for equal opportunity and human relations education and training are: (a) all military personnel, 
including those selected for command positions and those in the rank of flag or general officer, 
should receive education and training; (b) education and training programs should be conducted 
at installation and fleet unit commands, military accession (entry) points, and throughout the 



21 



system of professional military education; and (c) the training should be conducted on a 
recurring basis. 

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) is responsible, 
specifically for: (a) training all military personnel assigned to military EO billets and staff 
officers who directly manage EO and human relations programs; and (b) providing assistance or 
consultation services to DoD organizations in developing specific curricula and training for EO 
and human relations - in professional military education programs, for instance. 

According to a March 1994 report by the DoD IG, over the last 21 years, the DEOMI has 
graduated over 12,000 trained personnel for the Armed Forces - both active duty and Reserve 
Component personnel. Active duty graduates total approximately 4,000 for the Army; 1,200 
each for the Navy and the Air Force; and six for the Marine Corps. The DoD IG interviewed 65 
DEOMI graduates currently serving as EO advisors (40 Army, 15 Navy, and 10 Air Force), the 
majority of whom were enlisted personnel. The EO advisors told the IG that the training they 
received adequately prepared them for their jobs. However, the DoD IG reported that the EO 
advisors "believed their low rank was a barrier to effective communication with the commanders 
they advise. They stated they were unable to obtain the confidence and support required to fulfill 
their roles and responsibilities.*'?^ 

In compliance with DoD policy, each Department has established an EO and human 
relations education and training program. At a minimum, each program is conducted at 
accession and entry points, incorporated into various phases of enhsted and officer professional 
military education, administered on a recurring basis, and documented in individual personnel 
records.38 Some EO and human relations education and training also occurs upon assignment to 
new duty locations, in courses that prepare individuals to assume command or leadership 
positions, and in commanders' calls (unit-level meetings). Much of the unit-level training is 
done on an annual basis. 

However, professional military education curricula for mid- and senior-level commanders 
does not include material on managing military equal opportunity or discrimination complaint 
systems, holding military subordinates accountable, managing civilian EEO and discrimination 
complamts programs, managing EO programs in a joint environment, or the commander's role 
in, and responsibilities for, equal opportunity programs. Professional military education for both 
officers and non-commissioned officers which stresses their leadership responsibilities and 
provides information on the legal and organizational frameworks within which they operate 
would increase the effectiveness of EO programs. For instance, case studies can provide 
examples about how difficult cases have been handled and what sanctions have been given, 
thereby providing a toolkit for commanders which can provide options to military leaders 
confronted with EO challenges. 



Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of Military Department Investigations, p. 8; see 
also pp. 6-7 (attached at Appendix 10). 

3S See Volume II of this report for a summary of current professional military education EO training provided by the 
Services. 

22 



To address this concern, the Secretary of Defense -- in his March 3, 1994, memorandum 
on - laid out a program that gives high priority to preventing sexual harassment and 
discrimination and emphasizes that the Department's senior military and civilian leaders will be 
well informed of their responsibilities. Secretary Perry has directed DEOMI to conduct training 
for all military and civilian leaders as well as a mandatory two-day course for all new 
general/flag officers and new members of the Senior Executive Service. 



Recommendations 

11. OSD should require and the Services should specify the qualifications and grades of 
personnel serving in EO billets and ensure that personnel serving in EO biUets meet the 
minimum qualification and grade requirements. 

12. The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) should continue to 
specify standards and develop training for personnel serving in EO billets. A training and 
development plan for EO personnel should include requirements for continuing education 
to ensure currency and mastery of developing EO knowledge. 

13. The Services should establish minimum training requirements for personnel who are not 
assigned to EO billets, but who have responsibilities associated with the administration of 
EO programs or the resolution of discrimination complaints (e.g., inspectors general, 
chaplains, personnel working in victim assistance or support programs, first sergeants, 
senior enlisted advisors, command master chiefs, command sergeants major, and inquiry 
or investigating officers), receive training to carry out their EO duties commensurate with 
the nature and scope of those duties. The training criteria estabhshed by the Services 
should specify that the minimum training requirements for such personnel have been 
reviewed and commented upon by the DEOMI. 

14. DEOMI should review and comment on Service-wide EO training materials produced by 
the Military Departments concerning EO and human relations education and training. 

15. The Services should provide EO trauiing to all personnel and should incorporate it into 
the career life-cycle in "building block" fashion. 

16. The DASD(EO) should establish procedures for recurring quality reviews of each of the 
services offered by DEOMI: education and training, research. MEOCS, and consultation. 
For instance, DEOMI should implement regular customer feedback surveys which assess 
levels of customer satisfaction and which solicit recommendations for changes in each of 
the core services offered by DEOMI. In addition, the DASD(EO) should establish 
procedures for a biennial review of all DEOMI curricula by Service representatives and 
others to include course content, instructor qualifications, and methods of instruction. 

17. DoD policy should be amended to requke training for all commanders and civilian 
managers which includes comprehensive material on their roles and responsibilities for 



Appendix 1. 



23 



EO programs, including discrimination complaint processing systems, reprisal detection 
and prevention, monitoring of subordinate EO climates, and managing civilian EEO 
systems. 

18. Professional military education for both officers and non-commissioned officers should 
stress their leadership responsibilities to ensure effective EO programs and provide 
information on the legal and organizational framevi^ork within which they operate. In 
particular, professional military education courses should include case studies which 
include examples of sanctions imposed for discriminatory offenses. 

5, Prompt Thorough and Fair Compiaints Handling 

An essential element of a successful program to deal with allegations of discrimination 
is a complaint handling system that ensures prompt, thorough and fair complaints handling, 
provides for resolution at the lowest appropriate level, offers options to the complainant, 
protects the rights of all, prevents reprisals, and ensures the prompt resolution of complaints. 
Without this, individuals may not be willing to come forward because of concern about loss of 
privacy and damage to careers. And the Services will not be able to deal effectively with these 
issues. 

The Services all have systems in place for handling complaints of discrimination and 
sexual harassment. Currently, within each Service the same procedures are used for processing 
complaints involving either discrimination or sexual harassment. We believe that this works 
better than having separate systems. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, and all 
forms of discrimination in the military share a common framework of awareness, training, and 
command accountability. An individual complaint may contain elements of both discrimination 
and sexual harassment which a single system can handle efficiently and simultaneously. 
Furthermore, adding infrastructure or systems to deal with each form of discrimination 
separately would be confusing to complainants and would require additional staffing. 

For the most part, the Services' systems for complaint handling are adequate and are 
designed according to each Service's distinct mission. These complaint processing programs 
support unit effectiveness and individual fairness. However, there are problems in the system 
which sometimes prevent complaints from being handled properly. 

The Services use different processes for handling complaints of discrimination, including 
sexual harassment. After hearing the Services explain their complaints processing systems, two 
things became clear: (1) each Service's discrimination complaint process must support its 
military mission and (2) standards, but not standardization, are needed to improve the way in 
which the Services handle complaints."^ 

We offer recommendations on various aspects of complaints handling: identifying 
discrimination and sexual harassment; characteristics of informal and formal complaint 
processes; where to file a complaint; the complaint form; protection from reprisal; the conduct of 



See section 2, "Service Distinctiveness." 



24 



investigations; timelines for investigations; fair, thorough and adequate investigations; legal 
sufficiency; consistent sanctions; feedback and follow-up; confidentiality of records and 
documentation; appeals; and support services. 



Identifying Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 

Our recommendations on ti-aining and education of personnel combined with clear policy 
statements should enable individuals to have a clear understanding of expected behavior, both 
their own and others. When an incident of possible sexual harassment or discrimination occurs 
in die Military Departments, the complainant or bystanders must first be able to identify it and 
determine various options to deal with it. He or she must also know options for where, how and 
with whom to discuss or to report the incident. These first steps -- recognizing and dealing with 
an incident of discrimination - should be easy and comfortable for tiie complainant. 

The importance of offering assistance and guidance to Service members following an 
incident of discrimination or sexual harassment has been recognized by several Services. In 
attempts to counteract confusion which may have occurred, tiie Aimy, Navy, Marine Coips, and 
National Guard recenfly introduced telephone helplines, both nationally and locaUy. These 
helplines have proven very effective in educating complainants during the early stages of 
complaint handling. They provide confidential advice and information on procedures for dealing 
witii discrimination and sexual harassment. Electronic mail and electronic bulletin boards have 
also facilitated communication on these matters. Formal complaints are not to be filed over these 
helplines or via the other devices.^' 

The complainant may report incidents of discrimination informally tiu-ough the chain of 
command or file formally with the chain of command in each Service. The housing referral 
office, chaplain's office, and medical agencies will accept informal and formal complaints and 
offer advice in the Army and Navy. In the Air Force, informal complaints are reported at these 
same locations; however, formal complaints must be filed in the Social Actions Office. The 
Coast Guard created an Office of Civil Rights specifically for handling discrimination 
complaints. The distinctiveness of each Service has guided its policy on how to handle botii 
formal and informal complaints. 



Recommendations 

19. Each Service should ensure that the chain of command remains an integral part of the 
processing and resolution of all complaints of discrimination, including sexual 
harassment. 

20. Each military Service and Reserve component should establish toll-fi«e or local helplines 
that provide, at a minimum, information on what kinds of behavior constitute 
discrimination and sexual harassment, how and where to file a complaint. No complaints 



This is in contrast to the DoD IG's HoUine, which is used to report allegations of fraud, waste and abuse i 
addiUon to discrimination and sexual harassment. 



25 



should be accepted or filed over these helplines. Helpline personnel must be well trained 
in Service and DoD pohcies for handling discrimination complaints and be able to 
address Reserve component situations. 



Characteristics of Informal and Formal Complaint Processes 

Informal processes are intended to resolve complaints at the lowest appropriate level. No 
documentation is required in the resolution of informal complaints; rather, such complaints may 
be presented verbally to the offending party or to someone in a position of authority. The goal of 
an informal process is to stop the discriminatory or harassing behavior quickly. It is an 
unencumbered process: the Service member determines with whom and at what level to start the 
process. A complainant who is dissatisfied with the response to an informal complaint can 
appeal by filing a formal complaint. 

Formal complaints of discrimination, on the other hand, must be documented. Formal 
complaints begin when the complainant files an official form describing his or her complaint. An 
"audit" trail is established as specialists and investigators follow official procedures to 
investigate and resolve the complaint. Complainants dissatisfied with the outcome of formal 
complaints can appeal through clear, official channels. A commanding officer with UCMJ 
authority is involved in the process. The goals of formal processes are to stop the discrimination 
or harassing behavior, and, when appropriate, to make the complainant whole and to discipline 
the offender. 



Informal Process 

Once a Service member is convinced that discrimination or harassment has occurred, he 
or she can choose to resolve the problem informally or to file a formal discrimination complaint. 
The Services emphasize resolving complaints informally and at the lowest appropriate level 
because informal processes provide many options for prompt, fair resolution. Informal 
resolution can prevent complaints from escalating and, often, can resolve complaints with 
minimal consequences to respondents and complainants. In fact, the Department's 1988 survey 
on sexual harassment revealed that a large number of Service members were resolving concerns 
informally. 

Informal resolution may involve direct confrontation, third-party mediation, discussions 
with the unit commander, or other appropriate remedies. Direct confrontation is used widely in 
the Military Services and is the most effective way to stop discrimination and harassment. There 
are advantages to other informal processes. For instance, a unit commander receiving an 
informal complaint is in a position to assess unit climate, provide leadership, prevent recurrent 
behavior, and discourage reprisals. 

There are no clear guidelines for resolving complaints informally, and each Service 
handles it differently. Such informal mechanisms include the Air Force's and National Guard's 
use of mediation, the Army's use of "Alternative Dispute Resolution Strategies," the 



26 



Navy/Marine Corps's oral and written methods of confronting the harasser, and the Coast 
Guard's use of a written form specifically designed for informal complaints. 

Recently, the Services have begun to emphasize the use of alternative dispute resolution 
systems in addition to formal complaint processes in order to speed resolution. The Navy's 
Informal Resolution System (IRS) pamphlet lists and categorizes specific types of sexual 
harassment.^2 These informative pamphlets are widely distributed throughout the Navy. It is the 
first attempt by any Service to identify and characterize a behavior according to the degree of 
severity.^3 

In the Air Force, Army, and National Guard, informal complaints are generally not 
documented by the unit or reported to higher headquarters; therefore, neither the adequacy of 
informal resolution nor complainant satisfaction with the informal process can be determined. 
Informal complaints in the Navy can be reported verbally and, if unresolved, a request in writing 
for a commanding officer's request mast can be submitted. The Marine Corps adheres to the 
same procedures as the Navy. The Coast Guard, on the other hand, uses a written form 
specifically designed for informal complaints. The information gathered from the this form is 
used to assess a unit or installation's EO climate. Since both options, documented and 
undocumented, are effective in processing informal complaints, we make no recommendation for 
uniformity. 



Recommendations 

21. The Services should establish integrated and comprehensive complaint resolution systems 
for both informal and formal complaints. A comprehensive system will provide a wide 
range of choices to a complainant for addressing a perceived problem, link various 
support systems, and ensure that qualified personnel with equal opportunity training are 
available to assist a complainant. 

22. As a general rule, complainants should be encouraged to resolve complaints informally 
before filing formal complaints. 

23. Each Service should make available to its members information on procedures for filing a 
formal or informal complaint. The procedures should be well documented in pamphlets, 
booklets, training manuals, or other appropriate pubHcations and widely publicized in 
locations where individuals seek advice for discrimination complaints. 

Formal Process 



Department of the Navy, Resolving Conflict . . . Following the Light of Personal Behavior, NAVPERS 15620 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993). 

Although rape and sexual assault are noted in the IRS pamphlet as unacceptable criminal offenses, they are 
categorized as "Red Zone" behaviors of sexual harassment. The course of action recommended in the pamphlet for 
such behavior is to "inform the chain of command of actions taken or needed and determine whether taking formal 
action is appropriate or whether the Informal Resolution System can resolve the problem." The latter response is 
inappropriate for criminal offenses. Department of the Navy, Resolving Conflict, p. 8. 

27 



The process for filing a formal complaint begins when: (1) a complainant chooses not to 
proceed mformally; (2) complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the informal process; or 
(3) the severity of the complaint warrants remedies, including disciplinary action, that are not 
available through the informal process. 

Until recently, in the Navy and Marine Corps, to file a formal discrimination complaint, a 
Service member had to file an Article 138 complaint against a commander.44 Service members 
were reluctant to report discrimination or sexual harassment through the Article 138 process. 
Navy leaders understand that this process is problematic and have changed it. 

Recommendation 

24. TTie Services should ensure that a simplified, formal complaint process is in place for 
discrimination and sexual harassment complaints which supplements the Article 138 
process. 



Where to File a Complaint 

When a complainant has identified an incident of harassment and has decided that he or 
she wants to file a formal complaint, it is important that they know where and with whom to file. 
The Army offers several options where a person can file a formal complaint. The locations are 
similar to those for resolving an informal complaint, but include the Army Inspector General's 
Office. A formal complaint in the Navy and Marine Corps may also be filed at multiple 
agencies, including the office of the Service IG. A member of the Air Force may seek advice 
and counseling for filing a formal complaint at the locations mentioned above, but a formal 
complaint may only be filed through the Social Actions Office or with a Wing IG. Similarly, in 
the National Guard, a formal complaint may only be filed through the Military Equal 
Opportunity or Social Actions Office, 

The U.S. Coast Guard has used a centi-alized office for processing complaints since the 
1970's, when it established an Office of Civil Rights to handle and resolve discrimination 
complaints. The advantage shared by the Air Force and the Coast Guard is explained in a study 
by Dr. Mary Rowe. According to Rowe, "having a central office means that complaints are 
generally dealt witii in a similar and consistent fashion, which is often seen as a virtue for formal 
adjudicatory procedures."45 Further, centralized complaint pn)cessing results in improved data 
collection. A central office or trained EO point of contact provides a highly visible referral 
point, symbolizes command commitment, and ensures a well trained staff who can develop 
competencies over time. This person or group of skilled EO professionals can support 
commanders with professional consultation and offers an alternative to fiUng a formal complaint 
with the unit or with the inspector general, thereby working within the chain of command to find 
facts and resolve complaints. 

10 U.S.C. § 938. 

^5 Mary P. Rowe, "Harassment Complaint Procedures: Consider a Systems Approach with Choices for 
Complainants," draft paper, 1994, p. 14. 

28 



Recommendation 



25. The Services should provide a central point of contact at the installation level or below, 
staffed with qualified and trained EO counselors, to receive formal complaints of 
discrimination and sexual harassment. 



The Complaint Form 

The process of filing a formal complaint begins in most instances with the complainant 
completing some type of complaint form. Each of the Services, except for the Coast Guard, uses 
a form to record information about the complainant and the allegations of discrimination. Upon 
review of all Service forms, we found that some essential elements to expedite the process and 
ensure a more thorough investigation were needed. For example, the Army recently adopted a 
form which documents each step in the complaint process. The Navy has developed a form, 
based upon the Army's, which documents each stage in the process from filing to final decision. 
The Air Force uses a standard intake form for documenting formal EO complaints. This form, 
which has been in use for a number of years, is currently being revised to include timeline 
requirements. The Army's form contains the most detail; it lists specific steps within the 
complaint process and requires the signature of the person responsible for each step. 

When our Task Force convened, only the Army required a complainant to sign an oath 
attesting to the accuracy of his or her complaint. In November 1994, the Navy adopted a 
complaint form requiring complainants to swear to the accuracy of their complaints. Although 
this act impresses on the individual the seriousness of the complaint process, it is not in fact 
necessary to have sworn testimony on a complaint form to prevent a complainant from making 
false allegations or to ensure that the complainant is telling the truth. Articles 107 and 134 of the 
UCMJ indicate that making a false official statement on an official document carries a greater 
penalty than false swearing."*^ 

Recommendation 

26, The Department should revise DoD Directive 1350.2 to identify Department-wide data 
elements and procedures which must be included in each Service's standard complaint 
form. Each Service form should provide for the documentation of each step in the 
complaint process, including pre-decision updates and post-decision follow-ups with the 
complainant. The Services should require the complainant to sign his or her complaint, 
thereby certifying the complaint is made in good faith. 

Protection from Reprisal 



See 10 U.S.C. § 907 and 10 U.S.C. § 934 (False Swearing). 



29 



One of the central tenets of discrimination complaints processing is that Service members 
have the right to complain. This right is legally protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. 
Most often invoked in cases of fraud, waste, and abuse, this protection also applies to Service 
members who make complaints of discrimination. 

Reprisal is the most insidious threat to the integrity of the Military Services' efforts to 
eliminate discrimination and harassment. Fear of reprisal looms over Service members and 
discourages them from filing complaints. The frequent occurrence of reprisal reinforces that 
fear, further discourages complaints filing, and undermines the integrity of complaints processes. 
Worse, incidents of reprisal cast doubt upon command commitment to equal opportunity goals 
and programs. 

A Service member filing a complaint or reporting an incident of discrimination or sexual 
harassment should not fear reprisal or retaliation. The Services forbid reprisal against their 
members who make complaints of discrimination, including sexual harassment. Still, briefers 
and experts who addressed us explained that reprisal and fear of reprisal are widespread 
problems for Service members. There are many types of reprisal, two of which are especially 
noteworthy: retaliation by peers or co-workers and reprisal by supervisors. 

Retaliation by co-workers can be especially difficult to prevent. They may take the form 
of anonymous acts, such as phone calls or derogatory material posted on unit bulletin boards, or 
comments which create a hostile unit climate. Co-workers may begin to take sides in a dispute 
and may be convinced that they are acting in the best interests of the organization. If incidents of 
retaliation occur, they require immediate attention firom unit commanders, who should state 
plainly their commitment to equal opportunity, proper treatment for all individuals, and their 
pledge to a fair and complete process of complaint handling. Bystanders and co-workers who 
show support for complainants can greatly diminish the possibility of peer retaliation. 

In a report published in early 1994, the National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People (NAACP) found that fear of reprisal was widespread: "[P]ersonnel who had and 
personnel who had not used EO channels shared a common reaction - fear of reprisals.""*^ 
Further, the NAACP reported: 

In a military case, a black non-commissioned officer, found innocent of court- 
martial charges, was involuntarily reassigned to another unit, received a mediocre 
performance rating, and a low level end-of-tour award. When he sought to file a 
racial discrimination complaint against his commander for these actions, the EO 
advisor stated, "you don't want to mess with it" - implying that the commander 
will strike back.^^ 

In addition, the NAACP found that Service members believed they would be ostracized if they 
filed complaints; they would no longer be seen as team players. 



'^'^ See NAACP, Continuing The Search, p. 10. 
NAACP. Continuing the Search, p. 10. 

30 



The four female Service members who testified before the House Armed Services 
Committee on March 9, 1994, highlighted the fact that reprisal is a significant problem. One of 
the witnesses, a Navy lieutenant, recalled her experiences after filing a complaint of harassment: 

After my report, the leadership . . . took no action to isolate me from the [subject]. I 
decided to go further up my chain of command. ... No action was taken. ... I 
called Senator John Breaux ... for assistance. When the executive officer heard I 
was talking to a Member of Congress, hours later, I was ordered to undergo 
psychiatric evaluation. I was placed in a locked psychiatric unit and evaluated .... 
I was found fit for full duty .... However ... I had to spend the rest of the 
weekend in a locked, non-segregated psychiatric unit .... I received an adverse 
fitness report in retaliation for my report of sexual harassment. ... I relied on my 
chain of command to protect me from reprisal and to take swift and tough action. 
My good faith reliance was not justified."*^ 

Another witness, an Air Force sergeant, testified that she had suffered retaliation from both her 
supervisors and her peers. In testimony before the HASC, she alleged that her official, written 
job performance ratings were downgraded, and the likelihood that she would be promoted 
diminished. She further alleged that her supervisors fabricated and placed in her file documents 
alleging misconduct and poor performance. The sergeant testified that she became the object of 
the investigation, rather than her harassers. When she filed complaints about these retaliatory 
actions, she found her car tires slashed and wheel bolts loosened. 

During these Congressional hearings, a subject matter expert argued: "Until 
complainants know that their complaints will be taken seriously and that the offenders and 
anyone else who retaliates against the complainants will be swiftly and appropriately dealt with, 
the system will not work properly."^ 

Subject matter experts who addressed our Task Force agreed that reprisal prevention is a 
critical element of successful complaints programs. Dr. Mary Rowe of the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology recommended that reprisal prevention be seen as a basic task of 
complaint handlers.^' Georgia Sadler of the Women's Research and Education Institute asserted 
that reprisal prevention is the most important element of a complaints processing system. Susan 
Barnes of WANDAS recounted several examples of reprisal and argued that, in many cases, 
retaliation faced by complainants was worse than the sexual harassment incident itself 52 

Both perceived and actual incidents of reprisal discourage Service members from filing 
complaints. No doubt, when considering whether to file a complaint, a Service member 
examines the outcomes of others' complaints. According to a DoD survey of military personnel 



Lieutenant Darlene S. Simmons, U.S. Naval Reserve, statement before the House Armed Services Committee, in 
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Sexual Harassment of Military Women 
and Improving the Military Complaint System, hearing held March 9, 1994, pp. 4-5. 

Patricia M. Gormley, "Sexual Harassment and Women in the Military," prepared testimony in House Armed 
Services Committee, Sexual Harassment of Military Women, hearing held March 9, 1994, p. 65. 
5' See Mary Rowe, "Specifications for an Integrated Dispute Resolution System for Dealing with Harassment," 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994. 

^2 WANDAS: Women Active in our Nation's Defense, their Advocates and Supporters. 

31 



in 1988, 26% of women and 16% of men who had experienced harassment reported some form 
of change in their work conditions which could be considered reprisal.^^ 

The DoD whistleblower regulation addresses reprisal by supervisors.^"^ Specifically, it 
protects Service members from reprisal in the form of adverse personnel actions. Section 1034 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, from which the whistleblower regulation was promulgated, originally 
established an anomalous situation: Service members who complained to an IG, a Member of 
Congress, or a member of a DoD audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement organization 
were protected from reprisal, while those who complained through the chain of command were 
not. The Air Force sergeant mentioned above, for example, was not covered by the statute or 
DoDD 7050.6 because she initially complained through conunand channels. The DoD IG 
recommended that DoD extend whistleblower protection to Service members who report 
allegations of discrimination in accordance with Service regulations. Before we completed our 
deliberations, the Congress extended whistleblower protection in the FY95 Defense 
Authorization Act. 

In order to effectively address these concerns, "reprisal" must be defined correctly. The 
whistleblower regulation defines reprisal as follows: 

Taking or threatening to take an unfavorable personnel action or 
withholding or threatening to withhold a favorable personnel action against 
a military member for making or preparing a protected disclosure. 

This definition of reprisal does not address hostile work environments. 

Clearly, complainants must be protected from all types of reprisal. Further, the Services 
need clear, well-publicized reprisal complaint procedures. Adequate safeguards against reprisal 
are critical to ensuring a fair and equitable complaint system, one in which members have a high 
level of confidence. While each Service prohibits reprisal, more should be done. While the 
Services cannot "guarantee" freedom fi-om reprisal, the Department can ensure that it is 
effectively addressed. 

Recommendations 

27. OSD should rewrite, and the Services should adopt, a standard definition of reprisal 
which conforms with recent case law and includes specific examples of reprisal 
behaviors, such as commander-condoned peer reprisal. 



53 See Defense Manpower Data Center, "Sexual Harassment in the Military: 
and 3.5. 

5^ Department of Defense Directive 7050.6, issued September 3, 1992. 



1988 " September 1990, Tables 3.4 



32 



28. The Services' discrimination complaint processing systems should contain specific 
reprisal prevention procedures, to include guidance for commanders regarding the 
relocation or reassignment of complainants. 

29. As stated in the FY95 Defense Authorization Act Conference Report, the DoD IG should 
draft an implementing regulation that provides whistleblower protection - that is, 
protection from reprisal -- for Service members who report allegations of discrimination, 
including sexual harassment, to a Member of Congress; an inspector general; a member ' 
of a DoD audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization; or any pereon 
or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command) 
designated pursuant to regulations or other established administrative procedures for such 
conununications. 

30. To deal with reprisal by peers and co-workers, the Services should implement follow-up 
at the local level and improve training for leaders. This training should be associated 
with the Services' reprisal prevention procedures described above. 

31. DoD Directive 1350.2 should be revised to explicitly prohibit reprisal in discrimination 
and sexual harassment cases. 



The Conduct of Investigations 

Once a complaint has been filed with an EO advisor, an investigatory process is 
launched. After informing the commander or other appropriate parties of the complaint, the EO 
advisor initiates an administrative process of fact-finding or clarification. Typically, this process 
includes interviewing the complainant, the subject, and key witnesses, and preparing a written 
report for the commander. Service policy prohibits EO advisors from conducting formal 
investigations; still, investigating officers may use the clarifying reports prepared by EO 
advisors.56 

Based on the findings reported by the EO specialist, the commander decides whether a 
formal investigation is warranted. The commander might choose to take action based solely on 
the information gathered during the preliminary fact-finding. If the commander decides to 
launch a formal investigation, he or she then appoints an investigating or inquiry officer (lO). 
Commanders are required to appoint an uninvolved, disinterested officer equivalent or higher in 
rank to the complainant and the accused. Service regulations require the 10 to use IG 
investigatory procedures, such as gathering sworn testimony. 



NonnaUy, the complainant should not be involuntarily transfened. Where there exists the threat of bodily harm 
to the complainant ftom an unidentified person(s), or when commanders otherwise determine that a transfer is 
necessary, the commander should document the reason(s) for the transfer and inform the complainant. 

The role of the EO advisor varies among the Services. For example, in the Air Force, the role of the EO advisor 
is simply to clarify the information and not to fact-find or interview involved parties. On the other hand, an EO 
advisor in the Army is responsible for informally investigating complaints. In the Navy and Marine Corps, EO 
specialists provide assistance and advice to commanders while investigating officers conduct investigations. 

33 



Typically, the 10 is not trained in EO policy, IG procedures, or legal requirements. Nor 
do the Services currently proscribe any particular briefing on those issues once the 10 is 
appointed. Therefore, the lO's knowledge of these important issues is limited to what he or she 
takes the initiative to learn. Complaints of discrimination are so specific that lOs should consult 
with EO specialists on the particular character and sensitivity of such complaints. In addition, 
the 10 would be expected to follow the guidance provided in Service manuals for conducting 
formal investigations and to obtain a review for legal sufficiency as well as an EO review to 
ensure that all aspects of the alleged discrimination are investigated prior to reporting to the 
commander. 



Recommendation 

32. The Services should require the appointing commander to instruct the 10 to seek the 
advice of an EO specialist as he or she conducts the investigation. 

Timelines for Resolution 

The length of time a Service member has to file a formal complaint varies among the 
Services. For example, the Air Force and National Guard allow up to six months while the 
Marine Corps, Army and Coast Guard give a coniplainant 60 days; the Navy allows only 45 days 
(or longer, upon the discretion of the commanding officer). We reviewed the reasons for the 
different timelines among the Services and concluded that, in most cases, 60 days is sufficient for 
complainants to bring forth their complaints. In dynamic organizations like the Military 
Services, it is very difficult to adequately investigate aging complaints. Personnel are 
transferred, memories fade, and the further the complaint follows the incident, the more complex 
the relationship between the filing of a complaint and other factors involving the complainant, 
the accused, and the Service. 

Timeliness of processing is fundamentally important to complaint handling. The longer a 
complaint takes to be resolved, the more complex it is likely to become and the more difficult 
resolution is likely to become. A complainant may lose confidence in the system, search for 
other options for resolving his complaint, or feel that the delay is a form of retaliation. Normal, 
unrelated personnel actions that occur during this time may be seen as retaliation. 

In the case of one complainant who experienced a lengthy delay after filing her 
complaint, the investigating officer (10) explained that he was deployed for 200 days on 
contingency during the investigation. In addition, he stated that report revisions delayed the 
investigation. If the commander overseeing this investigation had followed Air Force IG 
guidelines or directives, he or she would have assigned a new 10 to replace the deployed lO. 

The Services have systems in place that can process and resolve complaints in a prompt 
manner. Each of the Services has established a general time frame for processing discrimination 
complaints; that is, each has stipulated a certain number of days from the filing of a formal 
complaint to resolution. The Service time frames differ. Both the Army and Air Force have 
established interim timelines within their overall processing time frames for the completion of 



34 



sub-steps. The Navy has established such interim timelines. Currently, there are no penalties for 
failure to meet interim timelines or overall time frames. Still, it should be noted that Admiral 
Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, recently established strong incentives for timely complaint 
processing: Complaint handlers must report to him when they fail to meet established timelines. 

The Services have varying timelines for processing complaints ranging from 30 days to 
one year. The example in Appendix 1 1 shows recommended timelines for completing an 
investigation in 60 to 80 days. Investigations conducted by Service IGs will be in accordance 
with Service IG timelines. 

An exception can be made for the Reserves and National Guard because of the 
complexities surrounding their actual duty time. The unique characteristics of the Reserve 
Components and joint organizations are discussed in later chapters of this report. 

Recommendation 

33. The Services should encourage Service members to report EO complaints promptly. In 
most cases, complaints should be filed within 60 days of the incident, or if a series of 
incidents, within 60 days of the most recent incident. 

34. The Services should ensure that investigative timelines are met. 



Fair, Thorough and Adequate Investigations 

To give Service members confidence in the complaints handling process, DoD Directive 
1350.2 requires the heads of DoD Components to ensure that all discrimination complaints are 
investigated in a "fair, impartial, and prompt manner." Each military Service has developed and 
issued regulations for the processing of discrimination complaints, including sexual harassment. 

A 1994 report issued by the DoD IG reviewed the adequacy of discrimination complaint 
investigations conducted by the Military Services. As part of this study, the DoD IG developed 
comprehensive criteria for evaluating the adequacy of complaint investigations. These criteria 
measured the independence of the investigator, the thoroughness of the investigation, and other 
related factors. 

The DoD IG's report concluded that 86% of the investigation case files reviewed 
contained sufficient evidence to support the conclusions drawn and satisfied the IG*s criteria for 
"adequacy." In addition, the report by the DoD IG found that allegations of discrimination had 
been substantiated or partially substantiated in 56% of the case files reviewed. 

The investigations considered inadequate by the DoD IG were deficient in several areas 
including: "Complainant or key witnesses were not interviewed," "Inquiry officers asked 
closed-ended questions without adequate follow-up."57 The report further stated that Service 



Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of Military^ Department Investigations, p. 2. 

35 



complaint procedures should adhere to standards that will assure Service members that their 
complaints are being handled fairly by trained, impartial personnel. The basic purposes of 
discrimination complaint investigations is to collect documentary, testimonial, or statistical 
evidence concerning each allegation made by the complainant, to assess such evidence and to 
determine if there is sufficient information to substantiate each allegation. The investigator is a 
neutral fact-finder. Under no circumstances is the investigator to act as a coach or an advocate 
for either the accused or the accuser. 

The DoD IG's report prompted the Services to improve their military equal opportunity 
programs and discrimination complaint processes. For example, the Navy and Marine Corps 
have developed handbooks and guides which explain how to conduct investigations of 
allegations of sexual harassment. The Army restructured its complaint investigations to include 
mandatory coordination and review of investigations by EO advisors, and the Air Force 
improved coordination between EO and IG offices on formal investigations. 

Recommendation 

35. The Services should adopt standards for conduct of complaint investigations that draw 
upon the criteria outlined by the DoD Inspector General.^^ 



Legal Review 

The current DoD Directive on military Equal Opportunity programs does not address the 
necessity for a legal review of formal discrimination complaints, although in practice most 
commanders incorporate such a procedure at different stages in the investigative process. 

Given the wide range of prohibited behaviors and possible sanctions/penalties in 
discrimination cases, commanders would be well advised to seek legal counsel prior to issuing 
final decisions in such cases or imposing sanctions. The purposes of a review by legal counsel 
are to determine if an investigation adequately addresses the complaint; if the investigative 
procedures and case file comply with all applicable legal and administrative requirements; if the 
evidence gathered is sufficient to support the findings of the investigation; if the conclusions of 
the investigating officers are consistent with the finding; and if any errors or irregularities exist. 

A legal review of formal discrimination complaints is also desirable because of the 
differences in the standards of proof required for administrative, as opposed to judicial, findings. 
Administrative findings need only be supported by a "preponderance of evidence" - the 
evidence presented or gathered is more credible than countervailing input. 



Recommendation 



See "EO Investigation Review Criteria " Appendix 1 of Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, 
Review of Military Department Investigations, attached to this report at Appendix 10. 

36 



36. DoD Directive 1350.2 should be revised to require that all formal discrimination 

complaint cases are reviewed for legal sufficiency before final action is taken and before 
the complaint is closed. 

Consistent Sanctions 

All of the Services provide a full range of administrative and disciplinary sanctions for 
use by commanders in resolving instances of sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination. 
As a matter of Service policy, commanders are expected to take prompt and appropriate action; 
however, the decision as to which sanctions, if any, to invoke in a particular case is left to the 
discretion of the unit commander. In at least two instances, though, the Services have designated 
certain minimum responses. The Secretary of the Navy requires that Navy or Marine Corps 
members found to have committed quid pro quo type sexual harassment, or battery, be processed 
for administrative separation. The Army requires that offenders in all substantiated complaints 
undergo counseling by a member of the chain of command, preferably the commander. 

The DoD IG's report found that 56% of investigations in which complaints were fully or 
partially substantiated resulted in nonpunitive actions, such as a letter of reprimand. In 24% of 
these substantiated cases, conmianders administered nonjudicial punishment under the UCMJ. 
The report continues to say that, "The data indicated that substantiated cases in the Army and the 
Air Force were more likely to result in administrative actions while substantiated cases in the 
Navy more often resulted in nonjudicial punishment under the UCMJ.**59 

There are three basic options available to commanders in discrimination complaint cases: 

• Dismiss the action as unfounded . When a complaint has been determined to be 
unsubstantiated after adequate investigation, it is appropriate to take no action against 
an alleged offender. On the other hand, the investigation may uncover facts that the 
commander may wish to use as a basis of counseling. 

• Take administrative action. There are a number of possible administrative sanctions 
that a conmiander can impose, ranging from counseling to administrative separation, 
depending upon the nature and severity of the confirmed offense. The measures are 
not mutually exclusive and two or more may be imposed concurrently, if deemed 
appropriate by the commander. 

• Disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Militarv Justice fUCMJ). 
Disciplinary action under the UCMJ may be either non-judicial (e.g., administrative 
punishment imposed for minor offenses) or judicial (e.g., court martial proceedings). 
Non-judicial punishments can vary based upon the grade/rank of the offender, as well 
as the grade/rank/position of the officer imposing the punishment. Penalties can 
range from a punitive admonition or reprimand to correctional custody of enlisted 
people for up to 30 days or arrest in quarters of officers for up to 30 days. There are 



Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of Military Department Investigations, p. 3 
(Appendix 10). 

37 



three types of courts-martial: summary, special and general. The type selected 
depends upon the status of the accused (e.g., enlisted or officer) and/or the nature of 
the offense and its severity. Punishment can range from a punitive reprimand to 
confinement to a punitive discharge. 

There are numerous articles or sub-articles of the UCMJ which can be used to cover 
behavior which can be considered sexual harassment. A list of some sexually harassing 
behavior, with correlating UCMJ articles, is at Appendix 9. As the Services downsize, any 
adverse action resulting from a substantiated allegation of discrimination will materially affect a 
Service member's ability to remain on active duty. That is, such an action could result in denial 
of promotion or reenlistment, or separation from the Service. Given the wide range of behaviors 
which constitute discrimination (including sex discrimination and sexual harassment) and the 
variety of official responses/sanctions, it does not appear to be desirable or feasible to develop a 
DoD-wide standard table of penalties for specified offenses, as is used by the courts in Federal 
drug cases 



Recommendation 

37. The Services should ensure that commanders and their military legal counsels are fully 
cognizant of the range of prohibited behaviors and the range of possible sanctions.^^ 

Feedback and Follow-up 

The complainant and respondent must be periodically advised of the progress being made 

on the complaint. Such feedback will assure the complainant that actions are being taken to 

resolve the complaint and will alleviate tension that could damage morale and readiness. The 

DoD IG found that, "Feedback to complainants regarding the outcome of the investigation into 

their complaint was documented in 65 percent of all cases reviewed, and follow-up to measure 

the effectiveness of corrective action taken or to detect and deter reprisal was documented in 6 
percent."^2 

The Services' regulations for processing discrimination complaints require that the 
commander, appointed investigator, or EO advisor provide feedback to the complainant 
regarding the outcome of an investigation. The Army, Air Force, and Navy complaint forms 
include the requirement for feedback to the complainant.^^ The feedback section includes a 
summary of investigations and actions taken to resolve the conflict. Copies of the completed 
complaint form are given to the complainant. 

Corrective actions in discrimination cases might not always be fully implemented, and 
reprisal against a complainant may occur months after filing a complaint. Documented follow- 



^ See related appendices 7 and 8. 

See recommendation above (18) on professional military education. 

Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of Military Department Investigations, p. 3 
(Appendix 10), 

In December 1994, the Navy adopted a similar requirement. 

38 



up with the complainant 60 to 90 days after a discrimination case is closed would ensure that 
there is satisfaction with the case resolution and that there has been no reprisal. 



Recommendations 

38. OSD should establish a policy which requires the Services to ensure timely and periodic 
feedback to complainants and respondents regarding the status and outcome of 
complaints. DoD Directive 1350.2 should be revised to specify the types of records 
releasable to victims of proven discrimination. The revised Directive should also specify 
what general information concerning sanctions, if any, should be released to 
complainants. Feedback on the outcome of the complainant's allegations should be as 
complete as possible, consistent with the limitations of the Freedom of Information Act 
and The Privacy Act. 

39. The Services should document each formal complainant's satisfaction with the complaint 
process (i.e., timeliness, staff responsiveness and helpfulness, and the outcome of their 
complaint). Such follow-up should occur not later than 90 days after a discrimination 
case is closed. 



Confidentiality of Records and Documentation 

Discrimination complaint files often contain sensitive, personal information. The release 
of such information is, of course, subject to the provisions of The Privacy Act and The Freedom 
of Information Act (FOIA). ^ Under FOIA, all records of agencies of the Federal Government 
must be accessible to the public unless specifically exempted by law. However, under these 
statutes, an agency is prohibited from releasing records whose disclosure would be a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This requires a balancing between the interests of the 
subject of the information in preserving its privacy and the pubUc interest in disclosure. 

A balance must be struck which acknowledges, first, the need of the complainant to be 
assured that his or her complaint was thoroughly and objectively reviewed and, if substantiated, 
that corrective action has been taken to prevent recurrence; and second, the need of the subject to 
be protected from release of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. In the case of 
substantiated complaints, release of an appropriately redacted copy of the investigative report or 
a summary of the report would build support for and confidence in the complaints process. 
When the allegations are found to be unsubstantiated, we believe that release of the report 
constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the subject. Release of administrative 
reports containing unsubstantiated allegations has significant potential for damaging the 
reputation of persons unfairly or incorrectly accused of wrongdoing. 

The releasability of records is also affected by the kind of sanction issued. Court-martial 
records are public and generally releasable except for classified or privileged material. 
Administrative actions such as letters of reprimand or admonishment are not generally releasable. 



^ 5 U.S.C. §552(1988). 

39 



Recommendation 



40. The Services should provide complainants copies of completed complaint forms. In 
substantiated cases, the Services should normally release redacted copies or summaries of 
the investigative reports. 

Appeals 

, Current review procedures vary by Service but generally follow the chain of command or 
Service IG channels. Decisions in the Army can be appealed to the next higher level of 
command. In the Au- Force, complainants dissatisfied with the chain-of-command decision may 
complain to the Service IG. In the past, the Navy and Marine Corps have used Article 138, 
UCMJ, as the appeal channel from chain-of-command decisions. The Coast Guard has no 
established appeal or review procedures, but formal complaints are decided in the first instance 
by DOT'S Office of Civil Rights. 

There is considerable Congressional and public interest in ensuring that there is an 
effective appeal process. In Section 531 of the FY 95 Defense Authorization Act Conference 
Report, the Congress calls for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation to 
prescribe regulations that include a process for appeal and review of investigative findings. 

We believe that a final appeal procedure should be established at the level of the Service 
Secretary for the purpose of appealing findings (as distinct from appealing actions taken as a 
result of findings). The Military Services should tailor appeal procedures to the needs of their 
components, so long as the common denominators of thoroughness, objectivity, and equality of 
treatment are provided in service regulations approved by OSD. We believe that both the 
complainant and the subject of the complaint should have the right to appeal administrative 
findings of discrimination or no discrimination. An appeal procedure should not be an 
adversarial process, nor does it require personal appearances or hearing rights. On the basis of 
the written record and arguments submitted with the appeal, the Secretary or designated official 
would sustain or overrule the finding below or remand the matter for further fact finding. To 
avoid delaying or impeding the prompt and effective resolution of administrative complaints, 
commanders should not withhold appropriate administrative or disciplinary actions while a 
Secretarial-level appeal is pending. When a commander initiates, or has previously initiated, 
either a nonjudicial or judicial action under the UCMJ, that action shall take precedence over any 
ongoing or contemplated administrative actions or their review. In such circumstances, the 
UCMJ appellate processes are the exclusive appellate mechanisms available. 

In addition to these procedures, the Service Boards for the Correction of Military/Naval 
Records may afford a remedy for both complainants and subjects of complaints, through the 
correction of errors or injustices appearing in their military records. Similarly, both complainants 



U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995: Conference 
Report, pp. 97-99. On the review of investigatory findings, see discussion of FOIA above. 

40 



and subjects of complaints may invoke Article 138 as permitted by Service implementing 
regulations to remedy wrongs by their commanders, and may, without restriction, present their 
grievances to Service Secretaries, Service IGs and the DoD IG. 



Recommendation 

41. DoD Directive 1350,2 should be revised to establish criteria for the appeal of the findings 
of formal, administrative discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. The sole 
mechanism for appealing the disposition of an informal complaint should be to file a 
formal complaint. In general, the first appeal of a decision on a formal complaint should 
be to an installation-level commander or, in the case of personnel not assigned to an 
installation (e.g., on ships), to the first commander in the chain with general court martial 
convening authority. Subsequent and final appeal procedures should be established 
within each Service at the level of the Service Secretary. 



Support Services 

Making the victim "whole" is a key objective in resolving discrimination complaint 
cases. In some cases, the answer is to correct military records affected by a retaliating 
supervisor. In sexual harassment cases, in particular, counsehng and other support services can 
help complainants cope with the trauma sometimes caused by the harassment. Access to 
counseling and other personnel resources can help overcome disruptions to careers caused by 
incidents of discrimination and harassment. Congress has required the Department of Defense to 
establish a victims' advocates program within its Equal Opportunity programs.^ 



Recommendation 

42. Victims' support programs should provide information on services and assistance in 
obtaining them. The Services should ensure that programs for counseling, information, 
referral, and other assistance are made available to Service members who have 
experienced discrimination or sexual harassment. Assistance counselors should be 
located at a central location at each installation and should have available a directory of 
support services available in the unit or on the installation. 



66 The Congressional requirement is at Section 534 of the FY 95 National Defense Authorization Act Conference 
Report. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995: 
Conference Report, 101-102. 



41 



C. NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE PROGRAMS 



The National Guard Equal Opportunity (EO) program has evolved over the thirty-year 
period following enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin under any program or activity 
receiving Federal financial assistance. The law does not prohibit sex discrimination. The law 
provides for withholding or terminating Federal funds from the States if documented 
discrimination is not corrected. This is one distinctive feature of the National Guard program 
and adds an extra dimension to the responsibilities of the program managers.^^ 

The National Guard Military EO program, however, applies to all members of the 
National Guard not in Federal service, applicants for military membership in the Guard, and 
beneficiaries of National Guard services. The system includes all forms of prohibited 
discrimination, including sexual harassment and reprisal. 

A second distinctive feature of the National Guard program is that command channels for 
National Guard members not in Federal service are through State authority. The State 
Commander, the Adjutant General, reports to the Governor and may be a member of the Army or 
the Air Force, Thus, the National Guard Bureau is a joint activity which operates an EO program 
and discrimination complaints system affecting both the Army and Air National Guard. The 
National Guard Bureau system reflects the unique state and Federal role of the National Guard — 
operating under state conunand authority in peacetime and meeting the standards and policies of 
the Department of Defense and the Military Departments at all times. 

The National Guard discrimination complaints system is spelled out in detail in a joint 
Army/Air National Guard Bureau regulation. It provides a system which is chain*of-command 
based, but which allows a complaint to progress upward at the will of the complainant. If 
unresolved at the state level, the complaint progresses to the National Guard Bureau for review 
and final decision. Under Title VI, the National Guard Bureau, as conduit of Federal funds to the 
states, must maintain final review or decision authority over discrimination complaints. 

The National Guard system provides for resolution of complaints at the lowest level 
through informal mechanisms: mediation and other forms of alternate dispute resolution are 
available and encouraged. Feedback is provided to the complainant and required corrective 
action emphasizes making the victim of discrimination "whole." Disciplinary or punitive action 
is referred for command action. The National Guard Bureau has published extensive procedural 
instructions and training materials to aid the states in their management of the program at state 
level. Equal Opportunity program managers supporting the National Guard program are trained 
by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. 

The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Reserves are similar to, yet distinct from, 
their active-duty counterparts. We noted some obvious and some not-so-obvious differences 
between the active duty and Reserve settings that can affect the nature and effectiveness of 
sexual harassment and discrimination programs. For instance, violations of standards and 



The Military Services, as part of the Federal Government, are not subject to Title VI. 



42 



instances of reprisal may occur across a combination of military and civilian statuses. The 
majority of the members of the National Guard and Reserve are in a military status on a part-time 
basis. Some serve in a full-time status in support of the training, administration and readiness of 
the National Guard and Reserve. In the Reserve components of the Army and the Air Force, 
more than 60,000 military technicians serve in a dual military and Federal civilian employee 
status, with their full-time civilian job supporting the Guard and Reserve contingent upon their 
membership in a compatible military billet in the unit they support. Most technicians wear the 
military uniform throughout the week when they are civilians. Guard and Reserve technicians, 
when they are performing duties as civilians, are governed by laws and regulations applying to 
civilian employees. The common hnk is that all are military members. 

We concluded that a "Full-time values - part-time careers" perspective is required. Off- 
duty or non-duty behavior that impacts on the military workplace must be covered by 
discrimination and sexual harassment prevention programs in the National Guard and Reserve - 
as it is in the active components. We also concluded that adequate support of Reserve programs 
requires complaint forms and reporting systems that clearly identify the duty status involved in 
Reserve cases. Similarly counselors, helpline personnel, and investigators must have adequate 
training so they are able to address Reserve component situations. 

Our previous recommendations apply to the National Guard (recognizing its distinctive 
features as discussed above) and Reserves, subject to the following qualifications. In 
formulating these recommendations, we recognized that many reservists only have contact with 
their unit during one weekend a month. Further, we noted that reservists serve in their 
hometowns and therefore tend to serve together over a longer period of time than their active- 
duty counterparts; therefore reprisal may be more of a concern in the Reserves. 



Recommendations 

43. In setting timelines for both the reporting and the investigation of complaints in the 
Reserve components, the Services should take drilling periods into account. 

44. In order to deal effectively with reprisals, follow-up on harassment and discrimination 
cases in the National Guard and Reserve should extend through a minimum period of one 
year following conflict resolution. 

45. Because the National Guard Bureau Equal Opportunity program has many distinctive 
features stemming from statutory differences and unique organizational considerations, a 
separate National Guard program, fully consistent with the broader Department of 
Defense program objectives, should be maintained. 

46. In the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are not serving in a full- 
time duty status, off-duty or non-duty behavior that affects the military workplace must 
be covered by discrimination and sexual harassment prevention programs in the National 
Guard and Reserve. 



43 



D. JOINT ORGANIZATIONS AND DEFENSE AGENCIES 



Our goals for EO programs - unit effectiveness and fairness to individuals - apply to all 
DoD organizations where military personnel are assigned. This includes joint commands and 
task forces, Defense Agencies and field activities, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 
These organizations include Service members from each Military Department, DoD civilian 
employees, and the Coast Guard. In joint organizations and Defense Agencies, the procedures 
for processing and resolving discrimination and sexual harassment complaints may be different 
from complaint processing procedures and resolution in the Military Departments. 

The principles enumerated in this report - command commitment and accountability; 
service distinctiveness; clarity of policy; effective training; and prompt, thorough and fair 
complaints handling - apply for effective EO complaint systems in joint organizations and task 
forces. Defense Agencies and field activities, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Our 
recommendations apply to these organizations also, except in cases where they would have to 
duplicate Service programs or reporting requirements. Our report would be incomplete if we did 
not address the procedures for processing discrimination and sexual harassment complaints in 
joint organizations and Defense Agencies. 

Findings and Recommendations 

Joint organizations and Defense Agencies have procedures for processing discrimination 
and sexual harassment complaints received from military members assigned to their 
organizations. The first step - using the chain of command to resolve complaints at the lowest 
appropriate level - parallels the first step in the complaint process for the Military Departments. 
In the Military Departments, if a complaint cannot be resolved within the chain of command, the 
complainant files a formal complaint through IG, EO, or UCMJ (Article 138) channels. 
However, procedures may vary among joint organizations and Defense Agencies for handling 
complaints that cannot be resolved through the chain of conmiand. 

Further contrast between joint organizations and Defense Agencies and the Military 
Departments may exist when complaint disposition requires judicial or non-judicial action. 
Commanders of joint organizations and directors of Defense Agencies may not be authorized to 
administer judicial or non-judicial punishment or to take administrative separation action for 
assigned military personnel.^^ Commanders of joint organizations and directors of Defense 
Agencies refer substantiated complaints that require judicial or non-judicial punishment or 
initiation of administrative separation action to the Service conunand element for the appropriate 
action. In some instances, the respondent is reassigned from the joint organization or Defense 
Agency to the parent Service to facilitate the process. 



Joint Organizations 



This is true for all violations of the UCMJ and not only in cases of substantiated complaints of discrimination or 
sexual harassment. 



44 



If the matter cannot be resolved through the chain of command, personnel assigned to 
joint commands file complaints according to command-unique guidelines. For example, Joint 
Staff personnel may file a discrimination or sexual harassment complaint through the Joint Staff 
Inspector General's office. The inspector general gathers the facts and, if warranted, conducts a 
formal investigation. The procedures are published in Joint Administrative Instruction, 
1 150.01 A, "The Joint Staff Military Equal Opportunity Program." 

United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has also established detailed procedures 
which are published in CENTCOM Regulation 600-16, "Equal Opportunity and Sexual 
Harassment Policy." The CENTCOM regulation encourages resolution through informal means 
at the lowest appropriate level while providing guidance for complaint processing through formal 
channels. The first step in the process is validation through EO channels to determine the need 
for a formal investigation. If a formal investigation is appropriate, an investigating officer is 
appointed and is also charged with ensuring that all interested parties are kept abreast of the 
procedures and requirements through completion of the investigation. Once the investigation is 
complete and prior to final disposition of the case, the investigating officer forwards the findings 
through the appropriate channels for review. If disciplinary or administrative action is required 
beyond that which is available within the joint organization, the results of the investigation will 
be forwarded to the appropriate Service for action. If disposition results in adverse action, a 
legal review is required. 



Defense Agencies 

Some Defense Agencies have not encountered complaints of discrimination or sexual 
harassment from military personnel. Those agencies are beginning to develop specific 
procedures for processing military discrimination and sexual harassment complaints. Procedures 
vary when matters cannot be resolved informally through the chain of command. The Defense 
Commissary Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Mapping Agency, 
Department of Defense Inspector General, National Security Agency, and Washington 
Headquarters Service refer Service members to their respective Service EO offices to file formal 
complaints. The Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Nuclear Agency, and the Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Sciences refer Service members to the agency EEO office, agency 
inspector general, or an EO advisor assigned to the agency to file formal complaints. 

After the complaint is filed, the process is generally the same in all agencies. However, 
the structure to carry out the process varies greatly. The Service EO office, agency EEO office, 
inspector general or agency EO advisor gathers the facts. If the facts are complete enough, the 
agency director makes a decision, resolves the case, and issues administrative sanctions as 
appropriate. If the facts indicate a UCMJ violation, the director appoints an investigator and the 
agency general counsel reviews the findings of the investigation. If the allegations are 
unsubstantiated, the complaint is informed of the outcome and right of appeal. If the allegations 
are substantiated, the agency director refers the case to the Service command element for judicial 
or non-judicial action or administrative separation action as appropriate. 



45 



Recommendations 



41, Commanders of joint organizations and directors of Defense Agencies should be 

responsible for equal opportunity within their jurisdictions. Because such activity heads 
do not generally exercise career management or UCMJ authority over assigned military 
personnel, special consideration must be exercised in meeting DoD EO standards. At a 
minimum, those commanders and directors must ensure that all DoD policies and 
programs are understood and executed throughout their organizations. Commanders of 
joint organizations and directors of Defense Agencies are responsible for: 

• Establishing EO programs that comply with DoD guidelines and reflect the standards, 
values and principles of existing Service programs, resources, and counseling 
services. Commanders and agency directors should be aware that some Service 
members may be aware of or comfortable only with their parent Services' complaint 
system. These individuals should not be denied the benefit of their parent Services' 
EO and counseling systeriis if necessary to ensure the DoD standards on complaint 
handling are met. 

• Appointing an EO advisor who will initiate the administrative process and prepare 
initial reports for the commander's or director's review and disposition. Generally, 
these positions need not be full-time, but incumbents should receive DEOMI- 
approved training that enables them to. administer a responsive EO program. 

• Establishing and publishing discrimination and sexual harassment complaint and 
appeal procedures that comply with earlier recommendations in this report. Appeal 
procedures should provide for referral to appropriate general courts martial convening 
authority. Subsequent and final appeal should be made at the level of the 
respondent's or complainant's Service Secretary. To the extent commanders and 
agency heads rely on the installation host Service to provide complaint processing, 
investigation support, counseling and referral services, these relationships should be 
formally established and published. 

48. Commanders of joint organizations and directors of Defense Agencies should take 
corrective actions and issue administrative sanctions, as appropriate, in all cases of 
substantiated complaints of discrimination and sexual harassment within their 
organizations or agencies. Only those substantiated complaints of discrimination and 
sexual harassment that require judicial or non-judicial punishment should be referred to 
the installation host Service or Service command element for disposition. 



46 



E. APPENDICES 



1 . Secretary of Defense memorandum, "Equal Opportunity (EO)/' March 3, 1994. 

2. Secretary of the Air Force and Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
joint memorandum for the Deputy Secretary of Defense, "Sexual Harassment Policy 
Plan," April 25, 1994. 

3. DoD Human Goals Charter 

4. Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Prevention Program Analysis Matrix 

5. Table Comparing Definitions of Key EO Terms 

6. Secretary of Defense memorandum, "Prohibition of Sexual Harassment in the 
Department of Defense (DoD)," August 22, 1994. 

7. Administrative Measures for Correcting Military Offenders 

8 . Comparison of UCM J Forums 

9. Charging Sexual Harassment and Other Discrimination Under the UCMJ 

10. Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of Military Department 
Investigations of Allegations of Discrimination by Military Personnel (Washington, D.C. 
Department of Defense Inspector General: March 1994). 

1 1. Suggested Timelines for Complaints Investigations 



47 



Secretary of Defense memorandum, '^qual Opportunity 

(EO)," March 3, 1994 



Tabl 



THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
WASHINGTON. DC 20301-1000 

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS 

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 
UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE 
COMPTROLLER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING 
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE 
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION 
ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 
DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES 

SUBJECT: Equal Opportunity (EO) 

Our nation's security and prosperity depend on our ability to develop and employ the 
talents of our diverse population. Equal opportunity is not just the right thing to do, it is also a 
military and an economic necessity. Most importantly, all employees of this Department have a 
right to carry out their jobs without disciiminadon or harassment As the Secretaiy, I have a 
fundamental responsibility to ensure all of our employees enjoy this bade ri^t Therefore, I will 
not tolerate discrimination or harassment of or by any Department of Defense employee. 

The Military Services have led oar nation in expanding opportunities for minority groups. 
The Services also have made great strides towards integrating women into die force; and the 
Department has done well in employing persons with disabilities. However, I believe we can 
and should do better on all fronts. This memorandum describes, in general terms, the measures 
taken, or that need to be taken, in order to build on our past successes. 

First, I have established an ofGce of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal 
Opportunity as a focal point for militaty and civiUan EO programs. 

Second, I have dedded to restracture the Department's Defense Equal Opportunity 
Council (DEOC) to enq)hasize management accountability. Hic DEOC will be diaired by the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense; its membership will include the Service Secrrtaries, the Under 
Secretaries of Defense, the DirectOT, Administration and Management/Washington Headquarters 
Services, and other members of OSD*s senior management team. The USD(P&R) will provide 
the executive secretary for the group and will oversee Department-wide initiatives. 

Third. I have asked the Under Secretaty of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to lead a 
major study of the officer "pipeline," and, where necessary, to recommend ways to iiiq>rove the 
flow of nunority and female officeis from reauitment through general and flag officer ranks. 




04279 



Fourth, I am asking your support for a vigorous, sustained effort to improve the 
representation of women, rninorities, and people with disabilities among this Dq)artment*s 
civilian managers. This should ixiclude greater use of career development programs and broader, 
more intensive recruitment 

Fifth, I want all the Department's personnel to receive equal ppportunity training. It is 
especially important for leaders to underetand their responsfibilities. ThCTcfbrp, I have asked the 
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Instil to develop special seminars and briefings for 
senior civilian and military leaders^ including a mandatory twon^y prpgram for all new 0-7s and 
all new members of the Senior Executive Service. 

More inforrnation about these measurt^ will be forthcoming. ^Ireq^ your unwavering 
support for these efforts. 




Secretary of the Air Force and Under Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness) joint memorandum for the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, "Sexual Harassment Policy Plan," 

April 25, 1994 



Tab 2 



SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCt 

WASHINGTON 



APR 25 1994 



MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
Subject: Sexual Harassment Policy Plan 

In your memo of March 15, 1994. you asked us to develop a sexual harassnxrnt 
policy action plan. The plan we have developed incorporates several initiatives and is 
rooted in our tlrm commitment to eradicating biuh discnniination and sexual harassment 
in the Depanment of Defense. 

Secretary Perry stated in his Equal Opportunity memorandum of March 3 that 
"all employees of this Department have a right to cany out their jobs without 
discrimination or hanLssment," Our broad goal, when dealing with issues of 
discrimination and harassment, is to ensure that we create and maintain a work 
environment where all of our employees can excel. In the military services, we must 
make the Chain of Conunand work for service members and against discrimination in the 
military. 

Our plan has five main elements. We will: 

• Work with Congress toward our mutual goal of eliminating discrimination from 
the Department of Defense. Specifically, we will soon send the HASC our after 
action reports on the sexual harassment cases highlighted in the March 9 hearing. 
On April 20, Under Secretary Dom sent a letter to Chairman Dellums reviewing 
lessons learned in anticipation of the individual Services' reports. We will also 
continue to cooperate with the HASC Task Force on Equality of Treatment and 
Opportunity in the Armed Forces. 

• Formulate a new sexual harassment policy statement. This policy statement is 
now under review and will be ready for SecDef signature on May IS. 

• Establish the DEOC Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment to 
review the military services* discrimination complaints system and recommend 
improvements, including the adoption of Department-wide standards. 

• Initiate a new sexual harassment survey to ascertain whether service members 
have confidence in the current system. 

• Implement senior leadership training at the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Management Institute. This training will include workshops on ending 
discrimination and sexual harassment 



Clearly, the bulk of our remaining work will be as co-chairs of this DEOC Task 
Force, The purpose of this Task Force is to make recommendations to you through the 
DEOC on standards and other improvements in the military services discrimination 
complaints processing systems. We envision a series of about ten briefmgs from the 
individual Services. These will include issues such as the training of complaint handlers, 
commanders and supervisors; the conduct of investigations; support services for victims; 
procedures for the prevention of reprisals; and procedures for reporting the results of 
investigations. The process is designed to enhance the involvement of the individual 
Services in contributing to the work of the Task Force. The Task Force will conclude its 
work with a summary report of its fmdings and recommendations, to be presented to the 
DEOC by August 1,1994. 




Secretary of the Air Force Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness 



DoD Human Goals Charter 





Department of Defense 

HUMAN GOALS 

Our Nation ujos founded on the principle that the individual has infinite dignity and luonh. The 
Depant7\eni of Defense, which exists to keep the Notion secure and at peace, must always be guided 
by this principle. In all that we do, we must show respea for the serviceman, the servicewoman, 
the civilian employee, and family members, recognizing their individual needs, aspirations, and 
capabilities. 

The defense of the Nation requires a well-trained volunteer force, military and civilian, regular 
and reserve. To provide such a force, we must increase the attractiveness of a career in the 
Department of Defense so that service members and civilian employees will feel the highest pride 
in themselves, their work, their organization, and their profession, 

THE ATTAINMENT OF THESE GOALS FIEQUIFIES THAT WE STFWE 

To attract to the Defxirtment of Defense r>eople with 
ability, dedication, and capacity for growth: 

To provide opportunity for everyone, military and 
civilian, to rise to as high a level of responsibility as 
possible, dependent only on individual talent and 

diligence: 

To assure that equal opponunity programs are an 
integral pan of readiness: 

To make military and civilian service in the 
Depanment of Defense a model of equal opponunity 
for all regardless of race, color, sex, religion, or 
national origin: 

provide equity in civilian employment for older 
persons and individuals with disabilities and to 
provide an environment that is accessible to and 
usable by all: 




To hold those who do business with or receive 
assistarKCfrom the Depanment to full compliance with 
its equal opponunity policies: 



Tb help each service member in leaving the 
to readjust to civilian life: 



service 



TD create an environment that values diversity and 
fosters mutual respect and cooperation among all 
persons: and 

To contribute to the improvement of our society, 
including its disadvantaged members, by greater 
utilization of our human and physical resources while 
nx2intaining full egectiveness in the r>erformance of our 
primary mission. 






Gom/ftane&in/, i/.J\Ifmrme Cof^ 



19 MAY 1994 




Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Prevention Program 

Analysis Matrix 



Tab 4 



rr H 

» .'O 

09 

{a *d 
1 'I 
o 

n 09 

ar ri 

«^ 

.X 
•-n 

:3 3 

08 ."O 

rr 

n CD 
c c 

» I'D 
(D 

o 

a> 

•d cu 
o o. 

c 

H« O 
rr 

^< CO 
(D 

O 

O < 

C H- 

3 O 

O (D 

M O 

H a 

09 O 

»-» CD 
n rt 

o 

O 3 
3 

0 

O 3 
H> O. 

Q» 

n M 
'I » 

3 C 
H- B> 
3 h- 

rr X 

H. CD 
O H 
3 P 

00 

P» 09 

3 3 
O. ID 
3 

C/3 rr 
(D 

X Id 

C «-! 
99 (D 
H- < 
A 

X 3 
09 rr 
H- 

09 O 
QQ 3 
CD 
3 

3 O 
rr OQ 

C 09 

09 3 

OB 80 

© H- 

QB 3 

rr 

09 O 
a* 09 

H» fD 

09 3 

3- O. 

A C9 

• 

09 



C/5 T1 — 

3 S. 
n 

o 
3 

S. 
3' 



if8? 
|i.|8 

n (A 

r 

s 



1 a 1 :S Z"2L =: n 

2. o 2, -^3 r:: 

2 <» Q 50 ^ 

|8 



I? 
If 



J ^ 50 
S O 5 « g 



c 
Si 




3-S f III |-S^ 

I if If I i- 
"If si 



§3 



!.8: 
ill 

do* 3' 
r. o 

Sk IB 

S3 



I? 

S 3 



1 

o 

3 _ 

H 



§2" 



S 2 S 2 



*o o 3 S ^ - 

^1 lift 

S- 9 3 



l|i 

2. 8 •! 

?r3 I 



f - s s ^ ^ 



1i§ 




1 

o 

2. Oi 
S S » 



u 

3 - 



fli IhI 

^ u _ m Jl^ 



is 



50 



3 S. o £=. 
S 2 3 J ^ 



1^ 
S 1 

1.1 



3 S 



1 



si 
3 a. 

■2.3 



ft 

3 



si 



• 13 



If 



rt 2. 

O 3 

3? 



» ' "2 • 
dp- 2§ < 
^ § rt S 

M g (A ST . 

it 

w < 80 



£. 5* 

3 3 
S (A 



j. rt 3 ^ i i o 
^ s a 3 S>. 

— o 2 *< ^ 3 

^itffli- 



o 3 5 




z a. I Q. c 

SI. B9 

i < g ^ c 

3 '■■2 s? 1 



IQ 



3 
> 



s 

BO 

3 
I 



2. 
5* 



o 

3 



. .So. . 3 

Z Z o ^ D 5 
o o < o 2 3 

:r rt ^ i2. ^ 3 

o. 2 (A fis OQ a. » 
2 3 s 
•a Q.g_r 



81 - 

^ Hi 



o 

~ -.00 

rt < 

^ 8 S" 



o 
•a 



3" 



ii 



2 » c i 

2* S <ft r» 

<s i: I o i 

Q. 3 ^ 



i. 
5' 



1^ 



2. 



5 < 



1 .So, , 

2 Z o 2 o e o* 

f ai^ f 1 1 

§■ <! S S <" 3- 

2 8 5f ^ 
»< 



2 » c * n a 2. 

£ 3 9: o S 2. 

o 3 a ? ss a 

« I 



S o 



2 2 o ft a e S' 



2s aif^ 1 




09 



■ • • = 

Q> 5 ft S ^ 3. SS. 



« 1 s ^ 

a 2.00 

"Is 



I 



3 IP 




zso . . s; 

S S ^ «2. ^ 3 
S g 00 a. » 

3 ^ 3 - = 3 

^lll 1 

2 Q ST 

i § I 

. 2 §• 



? 

3 ? 2 P G ^ O 



a: g 

S. ^ s 2 

I ^- = - 3 a s 

^ 3 » 2 2 



CO =■ 

§i 



9 f S 



i fa 



2 B> a. 
— 5* 

O ^ 61 

2 Z < 
5 » 2. 

3 G ^ 



o 5* 



III? 
^ o » Is: 

is ^9 

:i 3 "sIe 

cn 3 o 1-^ 
S 2 3 IS 



S 



1 

3 

0 



CO 



I I 1 I I jjr 

^ 3 




S ? 



I 



Si:? 
iff 



I* 

O 
3 



tl 




00 S 
12 « 



81 




<f 9- 
s& o 

g si 



|i 1 

2. 5' . 

» sj •• 
a. » 3 

^ & < 

js 5 w 
S. 5" Q. 

5 9 09 

2 « *< 



a a. 



o 



f 



> 
> 



f 

e 
•a 

o 

Q. 



> 



Q. 8. 



o 
3 



o. 



Z • 



3 ^ 



2 2 Q. 



o u> o ® u* 2 ^ 
3 o 3 -o o 5- O 

g M s <^ fi> <^ 



3? « 



» S. 

lilS 



la as 



Q. 

I 



o 
3 



IQ 



3 

w 

3 

3 




llS" |fi 2 111 ^ 



2 93 ^« 



2-g 
3 



3^ 



5. 




C2 



II 

=■ o 




90 
n 
cT 

3 
o 

3 



3"? 



S. Ill i: 



i" 



si 

3" o 



O 5 



'12 
=•00 

3^ 



I 



B 3. M C a v< 

•2. o o 2. i — 
a 2. S ^ 

Si e s 

9 



Q 3" 

3 

lli 



If 



is 

8 



« w s- 51 5. S 
I 111 



S 



ai 



i » I 1 i i 

Iff 1^1 
a i I 3 ? ^ 

If? 

0 3 c 



o 
c 
00 



3Q 
S. 

1 o 

3" O 

fi 

3 3 



G 



e 
en 

> 

"5* 



n 

I 

o 

e 

89 

s. 



3 

80 



80 

e 

80 

e 



5 



S 

> 
3 

SL 
'5" 



o 
3 

]< 
S 



s 

3 



^ 3 O O ?o 31 

O o o • I 

a 

«— ^ T-^ ^ O 3 

5: g a. g a. 
5 a- ?5 s — 



!§•§ f 

•3 Si* E2* c 

i- s- 1 i 5 - 

5 as 09 sr ^ 

^ ^ 5. 



o ac o ^1 
a. K 3 

ana 
S S o 

X 

c 



3S 



e g 
^ 5* 

If 



3 

> 

I 

I 

IT 



If 
11 



=1 



il 

nT 

< r 

4 




Con 


FOI 


Doc 
retai 


Record 
Act 


cial 


> 


3 c 

SLi 


use 


Redacted 


ta 3 


rele 


lily: 
only 


tion: 
ears 




none, 


copies 


Q 

SI 


Privacy 



If ?l 

i.i 8- L 



Confide 
Official 


FOIA: 


Documentation: 
retained 2 years 


Record 
Privacy 


-OoDc 
harassir 
• Discri 
Army u 


ntiati 
usee 


Reda 


relea 
Act 


lefinil 
lent ai 
minat 
se 






(/> 


0 a. 0 
fa.? 


. § 


copi( 


Case 




□f sex 
iscrim 
nodtf] 




files 




ual 

tination 
icdfor 



Si o 
? = 
2. =J 

« 8- 
= s 

n sa 

3 
O 



3 
> 

n 
o. 



p» n 

» o 

»A CM 



3-1 



> 

li 



IfplL , 



S O* g 

s. 



o \^\ 

« 12 



GO 



5 



3 
3 



S. o 



3 



o 

o 



S 

> 

n 
a. 



I 



3 9 



^ 3 



» (» O 



> ci 



<5 3 



8 21 

II I I n 
III « 

S'3- 



O 0 S «7 5 



It 

— Or- 
5 2 



^ _ 

3" C 

• ol 



5 1: ^ c 



7. 3. P B O 

o g SI "■ o 

"1 = ills I 

ss 



I I 



o 

OB 



e 



o 


C/3 


"10 O ^ 








o 


O 


anizationj 























a 



2 « 

2.8 ?^ 
a. 
o 



2 3 



OS 

r> O. 



o ^ 
3 



a. 



i i 
1 ^ 

3 - 

1^ 



oa -„ 

=. g 3 

MS" 

r 



>I1 

P s « 

o rij 

« I 



^ n E. 



5 g ?5 
o a 



2. i: 
o' 

D 
O 

tn 
O 



• n c 

^ 3 

S 1 



5 if? 



li § 
f II 



^ 2 -o Q 



8ii 8 
11 



if If 
i 3 



< o » ?r 

2 — c 

3 <» 5 



3* 5 



?0 
fid 



5' ^ 

P I 
§ I 



S 

Is 

3 
Is 



ill I 

2 sa 3 



I*' 

I 



2 
2 



ill 

if 



i|<= 

I? 



ill 

8^ 

CD ^ 

ST ra 

I- 



^ « <^ 
a 3. S 

Q «fl 



■1 



O ra '■ 

31:1 

" 8. 
P n 

ST PI 

CO 



^ « n 

o «» " 

"I" 
?•< 



n W 



m § O ra 

^ Q a " 

i ?. 2. " 



9 ? 

o o 

9 ^ 



o o 



C2 

\9 



le 
In 



S 2, • ^ 

2 2 

Si G» 

a ?^ s- 



S ii 



? S > S 

i: 5 3 9 

3 S Z 3. 

m <^ Si = 

3. £ 3* 5 

W « g g 

S. X X 
<• 2 

ll> 

|- § 



V> B) XT 
S 3 O 

i'8 ? 

n' B 

2"S 2. 

||i 

3 *^ 

s-l 
li 



^3 
Z « 

Q 
00 



le 

12' 



3 

-I , 

w If I 



3 

3 
3 
> 

3 



>3 



I 



•B 2." 

a 

o 

s 



n 



3 
3 



SF 
Spa 

3 
3 



1 



5 




g. - 

0 s 

> cu 

1 1 

. 3 ' 



• « 3 3 

o 9 c« 

g sr. n 

1 i 




a Z a 8 ^ ^ 

M S g n O 



Q ^ 

o o 
3 » 

"a " 

I 

e 
3 



I 




3. ! 



2 

O n 



g?3 



= 2 £ 



» 3 



P a. 
o 



i! I 
•g 



= 3 =^ 

l| 
SI 



3^ 



^ fi n 
:r. 00 ff: in 2 

to ftB '•V, 



D SS. 
< =3 < 



00 



o 

9 



d3 



5 Q 

s 



In 



3 ^ " 
8 5 

IJ 

' 3' 



SI 



it 
Is 



o i ^ 3. 
3* » 

=» a - 

5 9 ;S 
> 3 sa 
3 s.« 



1 1; 



s f 



5 



3 o =• 

11- 



I' 



O 

: 3 



O Q. 7 

II 



If 

Is 



Z 
< 



Q 

CO 
o 

i 



I en 
^ iz 



I 



i 

o 



J 

5 

r 



SI 

si 

3|5« 

ll> 



z ; 
11 



z o 



O » 

ii 
11 

o 3* 
-? 5 



i.S 
3 i. 




< w 

3* 



i s. ? 
I Hi 



2> QO:^ 
» g- O q s 

S 2 f 5; 
5 z<» z 



1 - 



1 



a G 

I ^ 

Is 



& n G w 

s » Q i: 

3 S. Z 

>1 ^. 3 O . 



-a 



S. 3 5 



§ 3 



'3 
3 



3 OQ 



§ S = SI 

« S S i ^ ? 

—•3 C/i 3 1 

oil in 

|ls-i s. 

as § 103 
<• "IS 

» z i 

Q |e 



3 
5 



3 



s 

s 



5" S3; 
g. 

c 

a. 
3 



^ > > 

o 3 
Z S' 3 

> 3 S 
-3 S 



1 flit 

2 1*5. ra-g 
I s z S 



8 ? 3 31 

^ n 2 fi<> 

" -n ^ ^ 

2. £. o g- 



00 

CO c 

= 3 



If' 



ill 

3 




o 



Z 3 

a 3 



I 



> 



5 Z J > 
o SS. o 

5 S 8 ? T 



S3 s 



II 
S 

o 



8- 



I 

> 



3 

I 



3 O ? OB a 

1 



^ 00 



S 
g 



< 2 i 





2» . > 

■ a 



lifilf 

1 a 9l 



3 



§11 




c 5' Q. 3 




"2? § 3.| 
3 2 "3 => 2- 




5» 

s s 



1 I 



S: ? A S 

<S 8 § I ^ 

«» S ^ c •• 

I f i' - ? 

ilif I 

§ 111 



S 3 3 § 

{/» re 

3 o o 2 

q g 

? S s 




2* 



til 

^ 2. S 2 OJ 



ill 



i « 
It 

11 



00 si 

s - 



i « 
If 



■I 



8 



i « 
It 

E 3 
3 a 



< 2. P 
o = o 



do' ^ 2 ^ 

s.i - ft 
i - c 



< 3D < ?0 
5 

$ e r. c 

fi> 3 » 3 

3 & 

O- M § » 

S O Q. s 

S W3 S- 

§ go I 
cn 3 



z' 
o 



3 
3 



8» 



En 



3 



Reprisal Procedures/ 
Prohibitions 


1 /. 

Command 
Accountability 


Proeram Element 

16. 

Standards for Complaint 
Investigations 


Policy prohibits 
reprisals 

-Commanding OfTicer 
/Chain of Command 
held accountable 

- SECNAVINST 
S300.26B prohibits 
reprisal 

Process enhanced by: 

- Follow up assessment 
to detect and deter 
reprisal 

- DOD DIR 7050.6 
Whistle Blower Act 
(proposed) 


- service specific 
instruction holds 
commander responsible 

- Command 
assessments 


US. Marine 

Service regulations 


1 ^ 

c 

1 


Policy prohibits reprisals 
-Commanding Officer 
/Chain of Command held 
accountable 

- SECNAVINST 
5300.26B prohibits 
reprisal 

-EO complaint form 
states reprisal prohibited * 

Process enhanced by: 

- Advocate assigned * 

' Follow up assessment to 
detect and deter reprisal * 

- DOD DIR 7050.6 
Whistle Blower Act 


- Service specific 
instraclion holds 
commander responsible 

- Reinforced by 
provisions to appeal for 
higher level review 

- Command assessments 


U.S. Navy 

Service regulations 


Policy prohibits reprisals 
• Commanding Officer 
/Chain of Command held 
accountable 

- Commander*s plan to 
prevent reprisal (proposed) • 

Process enhanced by: 

- Follow up assessment to 
detect and deter reprisal 
-DOD DIR 7050.6 Whistle 
Blower Act (proposed) 


• Service specific instruction 
holds commander 
responsible 

- Reinforced by provisions 
to appeal for higher level 
review 

- Command assessments 


U.S. Army 

Service regulations 


Policy prohibits reprisals 
• Commanding Officer 
/Chain of Command held 
accountable 
-Outlined in Air Force 
Policy Directives (AFPDs) 
90-30. 36-27 and Air Force 
Instructions (APIs) 36-2701 
and 90-301 

Process enhanced by: 
- Follow up assessment to 
detect and deter reprisal 
-DOD DIR 7050.6 Whistle 
Blower Act (proposed) 


- Wing Commander reviews 
for all cases * 

- Command assessments 


U.S. Air Force 

Service regulation 


- Addressed in COMDTINST 
M5350.IIB 

- Policy prohibits reprisal 

Process enhanced by: 

- DOD DIR 7050.6 Whistle 
Blower Act (proposed) 


- Commands must review ROI 
for administrative/ disciplinary 
actions as appropriate 

- Command assessments 


U.S. Coast Guard 

DOCR 


- Reprisal is prohibited by NG 
military complaint reg. 

- Reprisal complaints are filed and 
processed exactly as any other 
discrimination complaint 


In finding of discrimination of 
sexual harassment state AG is 
required to respond to NGB with 
documentation of corrective action 
to make victim whole and with 
summary of punitive/disciplinary 
action against perpetrator. 


National Guard Bureau 

NGB Investigator's Procedural 
Manual provides guidance and 
standards 



n 



3 

3 
> 



= 



CM 5* 



S 



< CO 
s- c O 



3 

tii 



o 
a. 

n 

< 

C/3 



ffl m -r 

c c 

2 £i 

o o 3 I- jv ^ 

§ i - i 

QQ 



80 

3 
S 
3 





G 

I 

3 
It 




S» S. i 1 i « » 2.i 
r r 3 p CO 3 s» 



S 3 =. v» o s 

I" 



i > 



<<' i 

SB 

8 

3 
3 



•5' 



• 3 ,3 « o 3 - 

3^^ 
2 " S <C 



It 

i 1 



G 

09 



I fill 8|| 



o 

§ 



I 



8- 



3 5. e 




< 3 fiS ^ 



09 ! • ! 

M* O < <^ = < s B9 

if irto ? 

3 



o 



3 

ar 
•6' 



o 

3 



<3 ^ 



1!^ 

i 8 



G 
> 



tti S 



Sill 15915' 
f Ml It III 
rr3 0003 



o S S « 

8" = 



3i:i 

log. 



ft «5 3 
« 2 3 

3- SL 3- 

o c 3. 

3 ^ 00 
3 S= 



§3. 03. §"g2«o 

ss. sr 
S S. 



I a 2 ° ? 

->. e S » 



CIS 



h 



if 



3^ 

^ > 

(It 5 
2 - 



&9 



1 ° 

ft 

S 3 

> 



§ I 
3 = 



!1 



• c« ' ' • c/a 
§ =; "H. 5" ^ ^ 

r 0 s? 3 



8 ^ 

e 
3 



. o a o 

i l"S 
1 i:i 



3" 3- ^ l3 O 
O S- 2. n 
3 3 3 

as 3;(g I 
5 S s 5 



n s. 

3 <» 



00 



" 2 

li 



3.S 

8.8 



ill 5i- 



if' 
S li 

O O • 



A 2, 

2 = 



<5. 3 



-» sr g v< 

3* «a 



3 



= 3. 5* 
- 5* S 



«3 ^ 



f 8 z 

f c o 

5 3 2 

- 3 I 

0 2 5. 

1 ? 3 



s. £. 
o — 

3 O 3 
fi> 3 

S S. 

I 



c & n 

1.0 » 

g C2S. 

o 33 
^ Si 

c rs M 




ft 

e 

s. 



S 3 



3 



c !r> o < 3 



3 



S » £ 
o 



pSfl 
is is 

f 3 2 



o » o 

S 

B 



II If 52 I i 
I 3 3 2.2.3 2 

III i a 

a 



i* G 

S M 

3 « 

o cr 
3 



I 



I 



111 5-1? ^11 I 



3 0»sS2.3»2'-ft loD 

? s =» g- 2 a s 
■ a i. S S" o- 

s." Hi 



1 5* 



„ 3 1.18 



3 
9 



£ i 



g 3 i 2.2.3 „ 

ill iii 



3 

1^ 



o 
3 ' 
3 



i 

i t 



I 



s:8.i 1^ ■§•§•§ I ■• - 



5 3 \fi 5 



III 



P? 5^ ? - nl 
o 3 i: p ? 
»*< s; g 3 

P« 2'2. 




s 5 

. = O 

i| 

3 a 



3 g 



2: X 2 S c 

Sf I 8 i p 

=1 3 i e g - 

S- 8 8 8 I S 

o • .= r^oo 3 

;S ^ ? Z 3 

9 SS. 3 =: I 

3 (g 

3 =■ § 



ill 



c 



|3 g-S-ai 1 « 

& -r ^ »i or M 

T> ^ ST 

» s. I? ^ S 

=* 3 rt 



I 



* I 

i 



116 



I S 1 " 
la I I 



_5 » 

■S. S- S «5'l 



11 

ri 




3 o 3 £. 3 ,5^ 

iis 5 IS? •? 3-? 
<g -i f 1 1 
1 I" 



•2.1 

00 



If 

if 

8 ^ 
3 ^ 
3 



5 Tl 



J 



§ s. 

O. 



! f» 2 § 5- §^ 



CO 



i* 2 ^ 3 

3 Si s> a. 

Ill 



r 



S cn 



(5 O 

■g 3 

2 § 

.3i 



- S S 3i 

■2. s- 2 2^ 

=• 3 v» 3 
3 tt » 

3 3 ~ 

^ n 2 

s o 3 

« 2. 

a. s 



1! 



0 



I 



o 



3 

i 



3 3 

n O 



=• 2 

o a 

i' 

p 



n 



? S a 2 § » 

8-3 1^11 

o 3 til tr* i/» 

£. Soil 

- o ^5 ^ S* 



• I 

§ 

fil 

s 



1? - - 

If s 

3 Q. q 

III- 

3 3 g 

r> » 
fis — o 

8 «< = 

^ 3 c« 
O V» 0 
fi3 Z* X 

<A ^ e 

» q s 

""8 3 
» % 
o* 3 
3 2 



^ i 

^ s I 

ts i 

r3 2 

2. 3 

£ o 

5' S 

? « 
0.1 

c I 



•8 



3 f» «« 



3' 



3^3 

• • 3' 
5 z 2 

09 GD 2. 



70 73 



1^1 



2 « 
5? 8 



i 3 



5 Si 09 2. 

S 

w 
s 



ill 

s-' 9- 
a (A B9 

3. g 5 



3 « 
2. $ 
2 2" 
2. 3 

O 
^§ 

^ ;s 



2! 
0 



> - 

« 3 
< 2. 



e 

e 
» 



09 
9 

S 3 

en 



g ^ M 

3 «» £ 

•5 t ? 

t= c S 

CO B o 

2 2 .a 



•s 

s 

o 
U 



2 ^ 



J2 u 

1 "1 



; := s 



1 « ^ 



2 o. 5 c 



OS 



w « S s 



c «2 S 



w S s 



i £ 

1 g 3 



b >B u «^ 

«« B •= 



« s § S-Sa 



e ^ 
E s ^ g -p 

iiitil 

O "Ti i2 w w 



5 o 



> .£ 



S B .£ 

1 ' " 



1 



Sv s: B <o 
•e 5 £ I g 



I ii 

11 ' 



O O 



■S B 




fij B 
- CO ^ V 4} 

— » B e B 

111 i-i I 



S 



3 



i 2 



E w, 



. a CO K <s 



B 

E ^ 



S. g u € 



3 2 s=5 



o O 



.la- 

o o 



Si J 



O C 
•55 8 

eo 



CO O Oi cB rs 

= B O ^ § . 

2 S 2^ S"S 



»- 2 



w >> 



c 5 >* 



2 S 



II 11 11 Ii 



B 

OA C 



5 > 



E 
E 

8 

2 E S* 




I 

fag 



§1 

^ o 

E B 

< 8 
11 



*3 
J 

la 

B 2 
.2 r 

a 2 



1 I 

2 5J - 



•o o 

sill 

^ s e « 

liil 



« 9> 



1.1 ! 



illlll 



8.f 

it 

O < U3 



■a «n 

1^ 



O ? 

"81 
..11 

I S B 

il 



i ^ 1 f s> 

B CO 5 fl^ := 



O ^ 
Z UJ 



5^1 




OB 



»3 



^"Sl^ I 

£| i J 8 ll £•§ 




Mll.^lltlllllllllillll 



e 



s 

fiu 



CO 

C 

o 

es 

3 
73 
> 
U 

a> 
u 
c 

eo 

§ 

CM C3u 



Table Comparing Definitions of Key EO Terms 



di 

•Hi 
-Hi 

x: 



•H iJ 



0) OJ t 

: ao to n5 
^ >.a C ^4 * 
: a; zj^ OQH 
4x: CO rts o o 

) JJ <UrH 0) CN 

< -H c c o VO 1 

I >i O -H m 

xj s 0} ^ q; < « 



C fH s I 

o 5r m ro >, 
C O in o > 
Q w CO m*H cm 
0 Eh rHinTJ ^1 02 
DC/} « < C 0) -H 

2; 0 H 10 JJ 0 
WHIO CQJ3x>OiJ 
n3>CNmas 033 

< • H i-H V4 03 . 

a;Zoio>o xj(i;>. 

EOO U <^ Q) CO 'HrH 

CO com aoi^-'H-H ao 
o 



= 0) I 

'-^ C ECO)© 
m O <-H CO -H CQ J3 
05 "H 

Q 

C 

O (0 }ni o o 
XJ CN -H 
QJ - O > 4J 
Q. E cno -H 

H s CO —1 O C 
C -H JQ -H ^ 
= = COT U J 

< = •wo;v-o<'OiH 



CO C -H _ 

Q) O JJ Z X 

Z-H OJ O (U > 

*H XJ C 



>^co 



c 

CO t; 

a m a. )m 



— o: 



c Q 

*H *Q OJ 
CT»C O 
O Q 

0 cn c 

•H ;^ M 
03 0 T3 * 

c u z r4 
0 o; • 

— ♦ * QIO CQ 
xJ 0) IT) 

C 03 O «H Q« 



C CN 
H O I U 

) 0 XJ m o 
) E C H 03 
I O Ei< « 

M JJ 
CO 10 u 



c 

O H 

c 

•H H 
C H 
•H CO % 

(D • H lO 
Q > CN 
0< • 

0) Q rs o 

E U o 
m CO U m 
CO 03 CO m 



C 03 

Ox; 5m} c 
-H ClxJ 0) O O 
XJ CU -H H 
-H O C XJ 

c X CO (ui m ^ 

-H (U ^ O) c o 

^ -H CN ^ 

0) ^ OS tX4 E t t 
tD Q O O -H o ^ 

0 ^ o 
CJ a >.E 0 ^o (0 
E E u tn u 

03 CO W O -H 0(4 10 
C/3 OJ < *i-f TJ < Q4 



H C I— I ^ (D 
r-H OJ )M 

< ^ z 

- XJ C X • 

) OJ D <U CO 

)x: CO a; 

< XJ CO tj 
I <U'0 z 

c > <D m 

I Or^ E > 

i-H c OT) 
i XJ > U 03 



XJ 

• >^ CJ 
X Z O Z 
(U 03 'D 
CO ^ C 

* 03 O-H C 

u mxi cj oj 0) 
C >^ z ^ 

^ O OJ^ X 5 

> > m OJ 
CO m CJ CO 0) 

JJ 14-1 V4 .H u 

CO q; CO 03 3 

O^HX >, XJ 

3 05 XJ JZ M-i 03 

CTs o ao c 



0>i-i >.'D xJ^ 
XJ O J3 03 -H XJ 
E O-H 
C C x; -H CJ 

O O U CO rH-H 



CO XJX 

CO O C C 

•H a> 0 0 

E-f-^ u CO 



Q) E 



V axj 







C 






CO 


0 


1 




c 


-H 


Q 




0 


x; 


00 




•H 


(0 


03 


iH 


X) 


C 


U 




-H 


-H 


m 


E- 


c 


E 


X 


'J3 


•H 












fH XJ 


n 




u 


(0 c 




Q 


QQ 


3 0) 


< 












Q 


0) 


CN I 




^ 


CO 



XJ CO 
03 03 

Cn05 
(D (1) 



CO VD 
•H ro 



0) 
0 

u 

0 

fa 



CD 

c 

•H 
M 

z 
> 

(0 

2: 



•HI 
SI 





1 




- " T3 












• c :-i 








u OSi W >^ 








:: 0 


1 -H -«H 0 






a 




E U 








0 0 u to 


0) c; (J - 










13 a; c 


Q 






C/} JJ T -H 




0 


o'c 


c c 


K u c c cn 


0 4J to 


Q 






•-i CD 0 C 


c ro ^ 




E ZI 


u 




a; a 




i- C 






o; E CO a 








r >Ni -C o; m 


a; >.c 








w o a 


U 0 0 Q) 






5 - 












• 0 CO ro (c 


u aco 



c 
u 



JZ to 

JJ iJ - 

U rH 

S 5 OJ 

CO 

>- > 

o u c o 
r o; 

CO 

= c 0) 



CO I 

• 0 c 



ro C 



E CO jj 

^ (U 03 
jJ 

03 -H 

o; E 



c 
O 

•H 
> 
C 



CO 
0) 

>M 0 C 

0J= o 

c 

u o 
0 u 

CO 



I ••H 05 CL CJ xJ xJ 



0) o; JJ 

> C 

fH o; 

CO E 



u 

T3 
C 
03 
E 
E 
O 

u 



I 

• c 

> 0) 

O CO 



I c 0) 

X o u 

<Ui-H U C 0) 

3 O 3 JJ 
O X JJ^ 

0) JJ a. u 

CO C U tH O Q) 
H 0) * 0) 

«-i 0) o o; o 

^ j:^ e a 
^ OS o a; E 
o Ut->E <u 



o 

> O U JJ -H 
U -H -H > * 
OJ CD rH CJ OJi-H 

a<D a-Hx: o 
D CO E r-4 a; 
CO D -H a-Q jj 



u 
o 



(t3 E 

a 

(0 





CO 


c 


ID t: 


0 


« - 


-H 




JJ 


OJ z 


-H 


£ 0 


c 


U 


•H 

(l-l 


i-H ^ 

OJ 


0) 


D 4J 


Q 


X C 

cn E 



C I CO 0 

•H jj O 

03 aO > OS Q) 

c x: 0 -H CO 
oj aao m 

>i C -H 0) u _ 
0 TDTI C Q>»H O JJ 

•hj: c 0J3 o (u 

C JJ CDITJ - 0} UiH 
ODD m U JJ 03- 

•Hjjocoojo^jc «.cq; 

JJ*H>NiQ;jNiQ4CnQ)00 



c c 

>N|-H C 

0 uj: 



O u u 

•HMO) 
•H 

rH • 

0) u 
•D 

- c 

ao) 
D cn 
o >, 
^ »^ m 
cno E 



> 
o 

u 
a 
u 
a 
o 



C rO 

>f * «T3 

JJrH 0 (U 
k ^ -H H to 

0) m xj &4 
> c c < ^ 

0 0 0) 



-HI 



QQ CD JJ a\ 
COS 

o M t]f) : 



>1 

10 
• iJ 

SO) CO 



5 -H 3 J3 W C 

C O CN k 0) >f 0) 
a)-H-HCNOCMQ 

AJ'W > g 0)M 

o 0) 0) c a>-H a>M4 
SS'OiH-HgcoaiO 



' x: c 
JJ I I u o 

a; > 0J=T5 

jJTJ C CO 

c TO c m 

0^ 



c 



c o c 

Q) -H 
C-H 

- o >^ 

^•H 0 

0 



o 

E 3£ 
O *M Jj c 

u o 



4J CO ro 



CO N 



^ C 03 C 
0 3 JX3 



r-» rH CO 

0 rH 03 4J 

U (U C rH 

w o 



03 0 xJ 



o E cn • 



U V-i 03 
03 (U C 



3 C 

CO 

O 0) _ 

i-<x:-H 



03 
CT>N 

C-H 
H C 
C 03 
0 OTD 
>M c 
xj o m 



a • 

O Q 
0T3WH 0>rH 

x> o r 

JJ u 

CO C 0) 03 

<U Q) a>rH O 

xJ x; 03 3 OJ 

a CO xj u I 

5m -H C -H O 
(D en 03 XJ o 

ac > ^ \o 

0 073 03 

1 u 03 ao: 



Q 

o 

Q 



rz S ' 

c 



E > 



XJ I 

03 C ^ 

^ 3 03 

O <D Xi 



• OJ 



o; 



o 

Jm 

o: £ 

0) 
E 



— t JJ > 
(Dan 

a; 0) 01 
C-E 

0 CO 0) o 

^ <U >u u 



E 03 

(U E 



U 0) 
O 5 



CO I CN 
•H X -iH 

(U XJ U 

(U CO c c 

^ 0) u 

=: c E 

05 tn a 

C OOJ • 

c o 
OJ in 

0) CO u 03 cr.j: m 

03 iH 

cr>'-^ Q 

C (3 Q 



I CO vj-i 
CO >,0 

C«JJ 

« Li m 
CO O JJ 



C * 0-H' 



u xj o CO a; 



a 0 
o 



c 
o 



I ^ 
CO - 
(0 ^ 
OJ c 

c 

10 c 



(4^ 

0) 
Q 



XI 

OJ C 
X E 

Q 
CO 



c 

rH O 
01 -H 

C XJ 
O CO 
•H C 

O E 

•H U 
X) U 
10 ID 
C-H 
W Q 



rn 



0) 
V 

u 

0 



0 

Si 



c 

0 

CO I 



0) 3 

(0 -H 
> 
-H 

CO 

o c 



o c 



OJ 

- c 

0) 0 
(0 JJ 



a 

mx: 
> u 

u m tn 0 

(Du^ m 0 
< m-D o u a 



a; 

U 1 0) 

UP to 
(h 0 u 

V4 )H o 



CDC 

-H-H O 

'HJZ U)U 
0 (D^'O 



C X 

-H I JJ U 
C JJ 

JJ c u 

>rH«-H O 

O ro fo r- 

C C CN 
0 • 

4J -H -H ^ 

u u ±j m 
0) c c 

> 0) 0) H 
O JJ JJ fiu 



X r 
0) 0) JJ 
W ^-C 03 E E 

C JJ 0) -H >H| 

w 0) ^ JJ 0 
£ C£ OiM 
(0 0) JJ -H V4 
03 J2 > 

m ^ ^ 

U 0)0) 

CO mxjx 
i: c jj 

(0 c 



E 

o 



CO 



CO o 

u u 

0 

> 0) 

Qi«M JJ 



• XU-4 

0) (U 3 



J3 
4J a 

M-l JJ 

u 

Q ^ 

H 

— *o 
cor** 

(DCS U 
O I 

o 

(Dm Q) 

3 CO 

CTH 

Obi 

cn<H 



in 

CO 

u 



c 



m 

0) 
C 

10 



<o 



m jj^ 

D fO D 

xjz tn 

0) JJ 
CO c 
JJ a; 

o Q) ^ 
E 

(D CO CO 

aco )m 

>h(0 Z3 

JJ iNi U 

m u 
<s: 0 



• 

tn u d) 

(0 

CO 

03 

c 
o 



>^ u 

O 3 

03 03 
O -H 
JJ CJi 

c ^ 

C JJ -H i2 

•H U > 03 

JJ 0) fo m-H 

JJ-mjC U 
0) (D 0} <D 
E USi (0T3 



03 
ro 



03 >, - 

- fO >^ 

C CLQ) 

O Q) 

03 ^ }n| 

JJ m 

<D C V 
E }^ 
0 

c ajD 

•H E O 
JJ <Ut^ 



0) 
0} 

E JJ 

o c 
aE - 

CO O 0 0 c 
QiJJ JJ 



I— t I <y CQ 

ro 03 U U \o 

3 >.0 » C WCM 

JJ JJ aco m CO • 
o a cj)€ o 

cot? ^ 

JJ C O C fn 

^ - C o in 



0) ^ Jni-h 

E O 0) JJ H 
C CU CO CO 
EOcOjjOxd 
CDa;EaJO-H>a)rHH 

O^E03-H>(0> 

<u*w>^jra)03jj-H><; 



t*- O CL JJ TJ CO -H JJ <u g 



E 



I > 
03 ^ -H JJ 



CU C 
U O ' 

a. fo -H m 



O =3 C 

0^*^ t? -H 

03 U C 



fO 

cn 

(0 ^ 



c 

C71 O (U 



O oa 

I 



CO 

CO 



z u Q) (z o m 



ZL'^ P'-^ijf— I (0 CO Cvo 



C m O ro c C 
r- C ro QITJ (0 TJ Xi U Cr«-u> < O 



Q 

o 

Q 











E ^ 






m JJ 




03 


•H 0 




C 


O O) 


0 


0 


to -H 




•H 




& 


JJ 






-H 




0 


c 


CO E 


u 


•H 


C ID 


a 


«M 


0-H 




Q) 


03 X 


•0 


O 


CD 






(U 03 


a 









0) 

V 

u 
o 



I 

0 

CO«M CO 



Q s 



Q ^0 0 s 0) 
OO 0*0 0< Pi(0 
CO I JJ <U 0) 1-4*0 M 

mo-H aj3 ••o-H fo 

EH««OI^O iTJrH 
e s 



0 I 

^ w o 

0 )M a* 

^ m u 

f-H Die <D 

m (u mxj 

3^ E 

•H 03 10 E 

> c 



a; 

o 

c as v-i 
E m o 



N EX 
•H 0) O 
C CP XJ JJ 
03 i-J OX 

>^ Cnto % 

0 C H 
•H iJ O 

v-i « c m 
O D-H I 

m o 
- o\ 

E c a 
m o E H 
Jm-h O Jk, 



Q 
0) 

u 
m 

s 



:2: 



jj a)> u o I 

03 C ro a>-H (Dt-H 

(U-H m-icx:cjj I ^row 

D OX C u-i E 

M-j jja)C0ajmrt3>«a;OC04j 

O) J-H C -H >-l rH W CO 

CZOJXJ-H^OEiDCjjro 
0-H mm > Of-i 0 ^ 
>M ^ cni^ m 0 Q*o m 
soooojo^iucncQ ax 



c 
o 



O U 



O 

c 

C XJ CQ « 
O 0) 2 03 
H C H \D 
H > CN CD 

m < • 

O -H u O U 
•H X U <n « 
> ^ CO m Oi 



0) 

O >.a) 

rH > -H 

X m 
0) 2 c 
^ 0 

0} JJ JJ 
•H X-H 

X a; c 

S XJ -H 

c ^ 
c o <u 

M UT3 



-H E 

m- 



Q . 

o c 

Q 0 

m -H 
c 

(D-H 

E^ 

m 0) 

CCTJ 



CQ 

< • 

cotn 



I 

c _ 

I 

CO 

au £ 

E en 

O-H >N| 

U'O 0 

CM-» C 
0 0 0 

W -H 

Q) c m 



C CQ 

a; z 
E H 
ij> 
m < 
(U z 

u a* 

xJ O 



(0 

ao 

< AJ 

% BO 
U 0) 

m < c 
in ^ O 



XJ| 



< 



£ I .-H xJ <U E < 

m o ' • »-H H c I » !m o CO m 

i-<oo30rHi4-i.Hcoc um>-j-H 
rHVMm-H03-w mm<uo<L ^tdv^c 
<D T3 £E«-hj:cl:ci-c CO 
CTJ>^ mmoacT>3 cotj^ -h 

Z (D Z jJ ^ U E C U) ^OrC >.XJ 

Cxjmmco ^c-.H0c: •mxjm^o 
CO— jiGjx-i cj^c-/— (CO —I mm 

;-.-2C7>xJCP0>-» QJC>iM^XD^. r 

Q) z m (Dmom*— <u(L)-Hc:.^flj 

C Ji^i 0 z: Qj E O coc:x;c" 
< m-H o-H q; c Jmi-^ Qj m o 
C CLxj xJaTE-HCa}JMECO 



CO 

m 



O^ di- 
i.^ m •'^ G; 



c I am c 

o -H 

ox 

0) U JJ o 

o c 
CD m 
* c 

a)-H c 

^ O Jb^ U xJ 

u <u c m 
c^-H <u m o 
m T) m M xj (u *H 



^-H 0} 
O "-H --H 
0)-H XJ 
IW c 

m 

u m 

xJ Of-H C7 

CO M-i a c 

E-H 

m cj 



C (0 

0 u 

JJ a, 
m * 

XJ I 

CO o 

a> o 
> \o 



I t C 

•H E m 0) 

f-H (U-HX 
•H E XJ 
E -H 

>.> 

O 

U 

<L) 
(U 
>. 

-H O 

0 

CO a 
m (u E 

< xjX 0) 



03 

XJ 



O E 
"i m 



E 
X 

0) 



Q 
C Q 

O 0 



XJ XJ CD 

c m 

•H C * 

m -H o 

Xf-H ECN 

^ a-H I 

E i^i o 
>nO u o 
E O wvo 

< CCD « 

< 



Q 
0 
Q 



0 C ^ XJ C7I CT 

XJ > oj w c c m 
m c c 

Z C O m '-H dJ r-- 

— :3 CO 0 XJ 0 ^ 
mx mx»- 

0) X (UXX 

a z: -J ^ x; m 



OJ 



c 
ft 



c c 

= m ^ . — . . ^ 

— cuaja>-^:5xj5o 
Jxi ^ J*: ^ i_ > 

fcxcX'jv-iiMOm 
Hxjxj mm 0 Oxj^' 



u 
c m 

O XJ 
C E 

^ m 

0) 

C O 

c 

CO u-( 



CP 

c 

••-I - 

m 

a' 

OJ 



m 
E 

Li 
O 

^ a 



' I I 

0) CO I Q) 

T3 TJ © 

t: \D »j •o o ^ 

cu • m a)T5-H J 

x^ o ax) c JJ 0 

CJ • m a ID o iH 

c a; o «. <u iQ 0) 

^ rH XJ 0) X 

0 O ^ fH 
J-iC0Q^^43a)'O 

acouacoco) 
— o 0 c c 

01 O Q U iH O -H 

U CQ «M 



in 



m 




c 




0 




-H 




XJ 








c 


m 


fi 


is 


0) 




Q 





XJ 

C 

m 
c 

•H 
IQ 
fH 

a 

E 
O 

u 



1 

1 

I 


1 Air Force 1 


An allegation, 
made through offi- 
cial channels and 
documented on EOT 
complaint summary 
or high-level 
inquiry action, 
that an act or 
circumstance of 
discrimination has 
occurred. Draft 
AFI 36-2701, Atch 
1, Sec C 


Communication 
used to degrade 
or imply a nega- 
tive distinction 
or perception, 
stereotype, atti- 
tude or overtone 
about a person's 
age, color, na- 
tional origin, 
race, ethnic 
group, religion, 
or sex. It may 
take the form of 
insults, printed 
or visual mater- 
ial, signs, sym- 
bols, posters, 
banners, or in- 
signia 

Draft AFI 36-2701 

Atch 1, Sec 1 




Navy/Marines 








Army 






i 


DoD 








Definitions 


Discrimination 
complaint 


Disparaging term 
or comment 



C 0) i ^ E H 

0) c ro ^ 0 0) o 

£ O CuJJ^ E 0) r** 

<U -H E m < rH u> 



0) T3 3 

O CD 

U D-H 

O > 

CTJu-Hro(Dco*a:Hco 

0 C ' 



XJ 

C-H 

ox: 

U 5 



(U c 
E ft) 



C 0 CO 

(DC u 

> 0T3 U 

0-H C 3 



COM4 J3 
k (d u 
0) M iJ 



CD 
0) 

• c 

•H 

u 

(0 



(0 



<D C -HTJ 
cm ^-H 
C X) 5 > 
O JJ C -H 
CO C 0) COT) 

>Ni <u E C 
0) E au-H 

u m ^ u 0 

•H C > m rH 

rs m (U vj f-j 
ct- ET? am 



t CO 

>im 0) 

JJ C-H JJ 

0 a-H • 

JJ COrH CO 

CD m -H JJ 

0) 0) ^ c 

E U CO (D 

> E dJ - m 
0) -H x: CO JJ 

•H r-l JJ C 

X CD 
0 0) >»-H c 

mxx JJ m 



m I <D c 

U JJSI'O 

(u m JJ Q4 

•H ^ C 
CO JJ-H 'D 
C X 0) 
O T3 JJ CO 

u C-H m 
m 5X 

fH 

m c x) CO 
D o c ^ 
D'-H dj m 

DJ JJ ErH 



CO >, 

JJ I 
0) -H -H 
CrHTJ 
U-H 'D 

•Hi3 m 
M-4 m 

CLJJ 

- m D 
JJ u o 
•H x: 

TJ JJ 

OJ C-H 

E m 3 



0) }^ I 
U - (l)-H 

c ^ no V4 

(LOCO 

»tH O O^fH 

^ 0 m 
c - c 

•H -co 
CJ O-H 
fH U -H U 

m m m 
c >^.H c 

0 rH 
•H U-l 0) ^ 

JJ O ^ 0 



H m ^ 
CO m 

H a 
> a 0 

< < X) 

CU ^ ID 
QUO) 



C in 0«rH 

H m < c 
D)in '^-^ O 



is 
E 



CO >nO 

CO JJ 
CD -H Q) 



jJ 

c 

E C JJ 0 

Jj O 'H X XJ «— i 

m QiV4-i m u o 



(U -H 

in - i-i 
^ O 
(U 



U 
jJ 

0) 

D CO 

c m 

fCX E 



C > ^ ^D ^ 

c m 
0) c 
U)0 



O H 

O 0) 
O CO 



_ ft: >i 

= a a; u -h < 

m 

CO 

• 01 
c o 



a 

CO • 
(U Q) 
>M 'D H C) 

c m U)U 

«-i H 0 



c m 
o c 



m • 



Q 
O 
Q 



m 



fc m 
a ETJ 
c o z 0 



CO a c 
oj (u m^ CO 



m H m 



0 

(0 

^ u c 

0) <u 



>s • m CO >-i 

j^ >^ (D 'D ^ 

CO COX OJ CO CO 

cnjjjjEQ;iJ-^E(uo 
m m vi-j (tj flj 

-t m 0 > 
3 caux 



0 >• 

CLjjX CLjj 



* m 
^ c 
m o JJ 

C«H fTJ 
O JJX 

CO r - 
u ^ 

Q.JJ H 
CO (U 

— 

m w 
H Jni m 
CJ OX 



fH • <D JQ 

0) o a)fH.-H 

^ Jj > -H X ^ 

CL (U X -H 

0 cp-H-H to m 
0^ c CO cox 
CL-^ m c o CO 
CO o a 
'^s: cl CO 

U 0>CO CO c 

(D m 0 



EX 

o 

U (0 



a^-i m 



CO 
>. Jh 

V4 JJ 0 

O -H CU 



c m 
0 D 

> 

JJ -H 

mT: 
a c 



CO >. c 

CO jj uj o 

(D-H O --H 

CrH ki JJ 



J*i CO ^ -«H 



m 

> c 
<u o 



CO 

^ X CO I 

^ m q; 
* mT3 

JJ U Vj 

m 

iNiTJ cn 

0) C (U 

E m iNi 



o a Q 

(UTJ O 
O (U Q 
<U XX 



>1 



fH 

0 m cn 0) -H i-i 0 • 

m 
0) m 
OfH 



c m 



^ O 
o au 
u * - m CO 0) 

}4 C O <U JJ 

* 0) -H -H ^ 3 

(D^D D^TJ CLjJ 

u c -H c m 
m (L) u m CO JJ 
)4 Diox m CO 



m 
u 

10 



> QiH 
Q U 
0) O C 
CO Q U 



CD 

c 

O 

-H 

JJ 



c 

JJ 

u 
o 
a 
a 
o 



0 

Q 



m 

& 



0) 
V 

u 
o 

u 

•H 

< 



m 

•H 

u 



CO D 
>,XJ 

u 

a 

O 0 
u 

Or-4 
C U 



JJ 

c 
V4 

(U 



02: • 

r->H a 
E<< 

^ 2: fh 
•H j= o u 0 

>iE --^ > 

^ 0 >iin m 
u xj m ^ 

03 M-l -H in '-^ 



I 

0) 

0) 

> JJ 

JJ 'O-H 

U 0) 
0) CO <u 
C 

0 JJ 
CO 

C Q) <D 
< JJ JJ 



CO r: 



B 



o 

- CO 

JJ 
c 



CO 



HOW 



E 
CO 03 



c 

03 O 
0) CO 



> JJ 

03 r 



(0 

03 JJ <t) 
03 rH 

-= 3 03 



U 

T3 (D 

3 C 
0 3 

c 

C (D 
0 Q) U 
03 



O <l)-H 

03 > E 
CU 03-^ 

ux: CO 



O CD CD I 
- 03 Q) I > 

-iJ o. u m 
;C c - >,o3 jr 

H 00 (U 0) JJ (U 

•H -H > 0M-*J3 

• -H JJ k a; 

in u o o Q) cDfH 
a; 03 0) a; ^ c j::^ 
OTi k aco 0 oj 

03 03 )n| JJ JJ Q, }4 L> O ^ 

jjjjj=<D00a)0Wmm 
cocojjacco-HcotnOi 



U 
• C 

u 

CO 

2 m 

H VO 
> CM VO 



1 

•HI 
-HI 

Si 



E 
< 



E i O 

' O 03 

CO ^ ^ to 

uj a E 

T3 O (D 

o 1o ^ c 

i-* 03 ••^ 
CP 0) c 

>z c o 

Z -H 0) -H 

< ^ C^jj 



0) -co 

^ ^ 'H CD 

0) CT^O 

• t^ iH 

C M o 

0 0) 0 

0 ^ O 
O CN 
C JJ I 

* O 03 O 
(D-H C O 
U CD U> 
03 -H 



Q 
O 
Q 







c 






0 




a 


ID 




a 




c 


0 


0) 


0 




a 


•H 






JJ 




0) 


•H 






c 


JJ 


j;} 


•H 






U4 
0) 


V4 


c 


0 


0 


Q 


c 


80 






ID 






Re 



0) 

u 
u 

0 



1 

X 

(U 

QT5 



CO 

C 0 

o 

CT3 



O 3 -U 



E aETJ 
(T3 (D o ns 
CO O O E 



c 
o 

JJ 



0) 



H H 

u o 



a; 
o 

}n| OS 



CO 
CO- 



o 

u 

H JJ 

b4 < 



0} 
0) 

c: 

•H 

d 
S 

> 
2 



Ed) CO 
0 T3 (U 
H ^ C 
CO aO 0-H 

H < Q m 
> r- c 2 
< • to 0\ 
:5 o <u -H >, 
o xj jj > 

63 fO 05 -i-i (TJ 

com cnc z 



a 

u 
< 



o 
c u 



= o 

o 

kl 

JJ a; 
u E 

- 0) 



C CO 03 



ID ^ > 



o 
u 



05 



0) « 



= CD * 

n £ 3 c 

05 0 

CO c c: xj u ^ 

c: n: o u 05 o 

CT C 05 CO u Gj 



= E 

O 0) 

u 



re 



••H 03 CO 

jj a o 

O 03 XJ CO JZ 

--^ S C GJ 4J 
E CO 

Q iNi OJ O C 

N -C Qj ^ 0 
— vJ -Q O •'i 

C £ E CO ^• 

c -h o — < fz 

cn3 E u t: E 



0! OJ 



' u 
0 o 

> 

03 
05 ^ 



CO 



1 0 



u >. 



E 03 0 = 



(u xj -H 



CO u-i 0 Z CO 

^ 0) O -H 0) 05 

O U xJ E 5 

q;^ c c 05 <d 

— q; o CO 

CO >^'D -H 3 fC CO 

'-^ JJ C C 

> 03 o o; V. 

O 03 0)1^ E 



^ (D CD 
>*03 U D 05 10 

aco\o u 

•-1 JJ uj . 10 

T 0 05 O JJ c m 
^ JJ 0) o 
* jJ CO a Jm£ rH 

3 CO <u JJ 

C0T5 C 05 Q O 
«^ C 03 (U O C 

o 03 03 X3 Q ca 



T 05 3 



CO 




c 




0 




-H 


3 


JJ 


T3 CD 


•H 


CD 0 


c 


4J i-J 


•H 


o o 


«U 


Q) m 


0) 


JJ 


Q 


0 Q 
u 

Cu 



0) 

u 

0 

u 

•H 
< 



m 

0) 
C 

(0 



E 0)- 
0T3X: 

a 0 5 

H < a 
> r- c 2 
4! • W 0\ 

2: o 0) -H >^ 

U jj > 
w in cnc 2 



CD 

a; 
c 



II 

ii 



; E 

: ^ 

: < I 

! I 



i 


















• C 










0^ a; 


i-i > 


CO 


C » 0 


0 




! 




u 


0 




a 0-^ 


c 


CP -H 




c • CO • 


1 


a c 






c cj CO jj r 3 




03 


0 ' CO > 










p 


CO 


Q) (U - -H CO ^ 




U 




CO 


C-HOKD-^iJiMC *(d 


1 






jj 


xJ u-i ^ CO CJ 


c ;^ 


JJ 


CO 2 u C 


T) 


03COC)NixJC03r;utoM 


i 


= c 




u 


0 ^ tt) 0 • c 


C o: ^ 




03 Q)'-^ (U QJ 




03 -H 0) JJ • «J 




c ^ 










03 


a; a-o3T5i: 


03 












E c 


— 0 




u > 




C^cuoG-HcOfHcom • 


!° 






vu 


(U 0 QJ iJ (D CO 


c-^ u 




fz o rz ^ 


03 


c x: -ph - o * 




U E 




»T3 


-J E Z iN» c 


E 




^ >> 




•^jjjjco-HioEi-^r*f-» 


! 


c 


< 




4J O Q 0 


0 


c 


C - O 03 




C 0 C (U to C 












CJ (U 






CO 








c 




CO 03 CT3 ^ 






i- C Z 0 


JJ 


0J>^UjJOCJxjEQO 


! 


<^ 






03 jz :: u 0 






0) a; m — c 






! 








J= JJ iJ U 0 03 


03 t; 0 


03 ^ £ E 4J 0 


u-i 


jjojvkjnoco-H^EQW 




on 






































CD 


JJ 


















c 


u 


















0 


< 


















•H 




















JJ 






















0) 


















c 


c 


















•H 

vu 


on 


















Q) 


CO 




















Per 



















cn c 

u-j cx: 
O 0) 5 
E 

cn CO 
acn ^ 

^ i-i U 



ro a; CQ ^ jj o » 

3 c c <u Jh m 0 

xoooox: - - c 

CO M-i u ^ > c c 

Cu^ k cn ij xj CO 



CO u 
<JZ o 



(D 
E 
0 0 
O-H 

> 



^ 00 0) C 03 }m 
0) 0 OX (UT? 0) 

5 o a*w-w > a 

0 D CO U4 E-H 
EmT3OO-HC0i-i 

0 E JJ r (D- 
>-ickjjcDcxix: 

O -H Q< rt3 CD 



c 
o 

CO 

ttJ c 

Q) O 

^ CO 

m 0) ^ 

C CD C 

tOZ) JJ 
3 CD CO 



CN 



U 

c 
u 

CO ^ 

2 m 

H VD 
> fS ^ 
< • 

2 o (0 

U o M 

&3 m (0 

CO m O4 



C 
0) 




H > 

JJ c 

CO U 

0 



u 
u 
o 

&4 



•H o 
y-l • CN 
(D X TJ iH 
0) 0) i 

Om 

0 JJ C 

w 

m c 

o 

<D-H 

E ^ 
m -H 
CO c 



c < 

O iH 

xJ o jc 

CD a) 





H 


0) 

CD 


QQ 


iH 


1 iH 


0) 


0 


0) (0 c 


c 


c 




•H 


Q U 






0 C H 


CD Q 


(0 


Q 0 CO * 


A) c -u^ 




•H 2 ffl 


•H (0 CO 




CO U H \0 


•Q -H CD 




(T5 -H > CN 


•HiH 10 




C< • 


JZ COfH • 


(TJ 


(U-H S O 


0 CD O4 CO 




E y-i U o 


u-H e u 




C 0) W r> 


04 0 (0 




CO'U CO m 





E 
u 
< 



T5 



f G 



a 

a; r 

O E 
a; u 



JJ fC 
-C CO 

CO ^ 
Z (TJ CO 



CD 

O JJ 
3 
CO CO 

m 











0) 




' 1 






0 


1 


CO 


c 




c 




nj » 


03 




fTJ 


0) 






CO 


E 










u 




C JJ 


JJ 


I—I 


0 


0 


z c 




ro 












U 


(D 








0 



E — ■ G 
rr: z -J 



X 

C JJ CO JJ 
C 5 U 

c; 0 3 
riEt-H-u 

- CO O C 



Cpl 01 >J 
CJjjG 

U| m 



CD 03 

ct: 



' 0^ 
JJ c 

^ i>4 iJ % 

O O C O 
3 



> 



•^h^ L) jJ 



Z C 



IT 

Z 0 



(U o 
E \o 
Z I 

00 

H VO 

> 

z 0: 



•^3 0fr — tw<i;<iH 



o ^ 

0) o 
CO VD 
tH 

(0 1x4 
Q U 

m 

o o\ 

<N 

o 



1 1 


X 0 c: 


1 ! 






c: XJ > 




G — 




Z 0 




C — > 


n 

! 

i 
t 


E Z 

E '"^ 
Z ^ 

c 0 

^ ir. ^ 
< JJ 



CO )m 

V o 



X 

c 

CO 



E Z C 



CO 

> JJ 
CO 



c z 



m z 
^JD o 
CO >M U 

c 

> 03 

fc i-i tj m -Z 

-Z CO 
^ JJ >^ C OJ 
rZ C ^ M 
Z Q.JJ Z 
XT) JJ 

a; c z 03 

CO 03 0T5 Z 



CO 

I o 



z 

0 

CO 
CO 



C U ^ Ui 



z c 

-iJ "Z 

u z 
c c 

0.* 



<D 0 Q) 

JJ C OJ 

0 IM 

ro-H cn fD 



— o 

U CJ 



CO w r c — » — . L» 



0 CO E aao oj a 



- u 
z 
o 

CO 

u 

CD * 
CL>. 
0; 



Z CO O "H 



0 OSi CO 

^ 3 

C JJ 

z o u 
o— < z 

-< JJ 'D 

CO u z 
CO OJ o 



c o 



CO 



H CO t: 



V V 



E 

CO 



•r-iU COJD Jmi 

0) 0) 

^ JZ <D OJ (D 

u a u 

U D CO CtJ 

O 0} m OJ u 



z 

<u o 

U4 CO 
03 0) 

a 

E CO 

o o m 
a<(Q JJ 



s: CO 





JJ 




U 


JJ 


•#-1 


i-H 


0 


u 




2 




z 






(D 


TJ 


CO 




U 


c 


(U 




Z 


0 


}^ 


> 


OJ 


a 


(D 


•H 


E 






T3 


u 






Z 


0 




(D 






Z JJ 






CO 


C 


z 


cu 


1 




03 


a 



0) 

c 
o 



Q 



CO 

n 

CO 

m 
X 

i-H JJ 

03 C 

z a» 
X B 

Q> 
CO 



CD - 

to XJ 

(0 c 

^1 0 

CO o 



m c 

0) 
CO 



I I 



0) 



035-10311 II II I-.. 

rDO--J>«03 ^ CO 3^ C-H aO) . ..H m C ro S k oi:^ S O O T3 n5 
O 0) -H (C > au 0^ «}r-i03>.iW'N^jJjM-H03 XO>n!C-Wfl)mtn 

^i:^ !S « o<« o o o a^-n cnoj oj os xj u ^.^ S S J n 

mc^coojw icDWK 00)0- ajrofHOjeoQjoJc-Httjij'Dc.H.ws.u 

= ^^'S ^ Si " " " •'^-CJ O (D E 3-2 Q) > 0 3 * m£ 

= >,<o CfH j: 0) ^ ae c (u xj (D-H c - to re - u >, u-o-h^ 5 S 

H « IS ?ti ^-^ i ^ o ^ ^0 " a-H 0 >,a -D atix 2^ 
< axj 3««xj 0 oj c m 3 UiJxj^ e S^a-D-n o S aai-D I Ro >S 





»— 1 










1 \ 0) 1 s (0 




• 




m 


X >,j= ac jj 




m 




Q) 


0) > 4J 03 0 C 




H 


CD 


C 


>^ fO U-H (D 




r- 




-H 


£ - 2 0) -H JJ E 






c 


k 






fH 




(d 












-H m m c m 




Id 




wjjx:cqx:ot3U 










u z 






C C (U CO 


•H 


H 




Id 


O -H jj -H E D)^ >.'D 2 


• > 








Oi 


a Id 



CO 'D u 2 JJ a-H = jc o < ^ 



CO 



— • m c ph o CO 

— <E -O (T3\JJ jJ 

'^"^ »-H c (u ^ JJ 'D m t -H 
V4 jj^ 5 XJ J-<pH 0 DIE >C 

cuxj J-i a)-Ha3*v^-.. >,.H (DC ^ JJ CO 

-ccuuc:co -^rc-E 
:^ U3 o o JJ 



CrH 

0 3 

c; CO 

O JJ 

01 in m 



JJ 
QUE 



m 



m -H c fc w >H JJ 



*^ C 
< z 



co-s a- 

E 0) 

U CO 
(L' C 



0; o 



01 CO 'D U <U jJ 



x-H >,c c-> cj 



01 J-' 



0) 

o 

c c o * 

O C0\£> >, 
CO XJ t ^ 

JJ (U c o Id 

u a; m a\ CQ 

rc >^ U vo (Q 

CO CL o o 

E^-H KM 



a 
o 

Q 



- o 



o 

CO T3 

u o o 

CU CO 

Q. ru O 

X- U C 

CL 

3 o; c 
cue 

*-» fC 0 
01 ^ 



'-^ ••H o n 
OiX^Q^ 
^ 0^ fO ^ (0 
in CO CO iH k 

C 10 

Z Q 

C l-i o * 

-I O Q OJ 
O^ 



— c 1^ c 

- E O 0 



^:5 OJ OlJJ C 

c ^ fD -H ca 













' f~1 W 










\U U Q 


I , r \ 1 1 

W U rH rH 


II) 


Q) (TJ "H i-H 


•H "H 1 


r\ 
\J 






H 




vU ^ CO fn 


O 


rH U-J Q 


U)JZ GO 


fa 


ao (D-H 


03 QrH H 






TJ fa 


U 


0) 0) m 


- - < 


•H 




C ^-H r-f 


< 


C D k 


-H 03 05 4-> 




05 m 0 - 


cncQ j3 




OrH X 


■H-H c Id o 




00 0) 0 a> 


U U Q) U ^ 







in 

CO M 
(D OJ 0 
0} O U-i 

CN C 
0) 0 

O --H 

fa u c- 



^ CO u-f 
-H • a; 



c 

0 

xJ jj 03 
0 (U 

03 

E 

u 

Q) 0 
>i(D 

OrH 03 m 



I 

E 

53 

c 
< 



0) 

a 

c 

C-H 

}^ 03 iJ 

0 o 

- 03 
0) 0) 

03 03 (U 

c 

0 0 0 

JJ JJ CO 



03 



ErH 0 O 

aao) 

>^03 £ CO 



a; o 

m U 03 
QUO 

U 0 Q) 

C 0) 

o c c 

0>#H 03 (U 

03 au E 



03 



t I XJ I 
E > C 03 . 
O (U 03 
O-H ^ 5 D 
>^ CD 03 
_ D) i-H 0) 
CD»-H XJ )^ 
•H 03 ^JT >, 

0) 0 cn C 



0 _ 

^ a 

0) axj 

X 03 c 



03 0 



OS CU 03 (D }n| 4J 



I 

03 U) 

C 

>.C0 CO 

M.4 -H -H 

XJ U 
0} <U 03 

XJ XJ 

0^ 



0) 
CO 



^ 0 M-i 



>i<D <S 




> 




m 0 HiH 




XJ CO u 


1 


•H 03 2 C 


0 CU 


rH H U 


CO >M 


•H C> 


fH 


s o<: - 


m CD 


*H 2 03 


H 0) 


CO XJ U VD 


CO (N CO 


03 -H U rg CD 


Z • CO.-I 


C CO • 


H m (U 03 


(D-H o nJ 


£ rH U CO 


£«4-i 0)0 U 


fa TJ-H 


03 <D 0) m Id 




COT) coin 0( 


O rH 03 CL 



0) 

c 

•H 

IH 

S 



Id 
2: 



CI 

^( 

HI 
•HI 

>i 

•h: 

Ui 



B 
u 
< 



U I 
I Q) CO 

U UT3 



3 AJ C 

^ C 

03 03 r 

^ Jm C • 

C XJ — 

D CO L 



E 

O * 
U CD 
xJ 
XJ C 
Cfi 03 

z c 

-H 

03 03 

m a 



0) 

I 

>-H 
•H Q 
XJ 

03 « 
XJ CO 

c a; 

0) CO 
CO CO 
0) 0) 

c 

CxJ 
CU -H 

iM 5 



o 

Cz3 - 
U CO 
U 

u-i 0) 

o o 

•H 

CO vul 

^ UH 

0 0 

XJ 

U O 
^ Cxi 



• C 

CD 03 
U 

0 - 
XJ 00 
03 U 

cno 

•H ^ 

XJ Q) 

CO CD 

Q) C 

> =3 

C O 

•H U 



UH 0) 0 

o u^o c 

Is} O 

U XJ XJ jj 
C-H-H 0)03 
(U ^'H C C 

O) -H -H 

m C0J3 CO 

-H 0) 

}^ 03 CO 0) }^ 

a)-H c 0 a 

J= O O 0 CO 
XJ-H a.j-1-H 
Om-< CO Q,X3 



c c 

I -H O XJ 

-H CDC 
3 0) XJ C -H 0) 
'D 03 -H 03 x; XJ 



E-H 



03 XJ CD rH XJ 

CD XJ c CO a 

XJ CO 0) QJ E CD 

C- CO o o c 



0) 0} 
X5 0 

a 
a 
o 



•H o 

m 



03 c 



U-H 

TJ 



^ 03 a. Qj 0) D 

a X rH 

E CDOJTJ XJ O 
O CJZ C C 
CJ -H XJ 03 

O 



aco 

E 
0 

u o 



CO 

CO 



03 



o 
o 
o 




0) 
V 

u 

0 
b4 



i-< O CQ 

O (1) d) C< 

TJ CO Jmi -H 
•H -H 

> U JJ 0£ 

j= 4j a 
0) en m 

-H (u Jni a; 

k (0 

c jc c 0) m 



C 



CD CO 

c o 

AJ U 

ro (0 

a 

O M< 

o o 

u • 

U-H 

— 5 



o 



0 4J 0) 0) 

HuczrcooiD'iJ 
o 



a 

COM^ 
C 0 



u o 
c o 

_ m-H CD 
O UTJ-i C 

u a,o 
ca)(T5>imoroco 
c u (ox: > 

(U (U JJ o 



Di C 
C O (U 



H JJ O fO CO *H 5 CLrH 



CD ^4 -H 

C (D > 0) ^ 
CO OJ TJ (TJ I 

O O U CrH < 

VW -HO ^ 

0) -H 109^ 

i-l fDrH OJ > 0\ 

>iO iJ O U — 
O 0) 5 jj . • ^ 

O JJ >-» rH 05 • rj 
OJ -H 03 i-i D o 
Q OX 3 3 en 
— jj 4j CTTJ OJ in rsi 



0) 
C 

m 
> 

OJ 

2 



CI 




11 




II 




•H 


: B 


>5 




-Hi 


< 


u; 






03 
C 

o 

•H 

JJ 
•H 

c 



o 



CD - 

-H JJ 

ao 

0) u 
p: 



i-i E CQ o 

0 O (D -H rj 

^ fHTD H 

- k fC I 

* Q> O O E VD 

0) >i 0 0 

>i O XJ XJ H 

Or-* C 4J C JJ CLi 

a E U (D re c H 

E Q> -H E CO -H 4J 

oj fH >,a) aE<WpC 

JMCLOrHE-HldO 
C 0) Q^rH -H 0 V4 k 4J 

< £ m u a Q < 



c 

E E 

O 



-cow 

>,.H E -H 
O rH 0) ^ 

a a->t o 

E fU EJ= 

c < 

03 *J 
E M C 

iM i-i 0 (D 

< O^^ E 



E-H CO 

OTJ c-^ 
O OX 

r-< O J-» C 
03 03 O 
£ 4J C 

O-^ E 

y-i 03 -H to 

03 clujc 



o CO arH 

•'^ 03 03 
U)^ U 0} 

* 03 "H -H 
^ X ^ OTJ >^ 
O 0) 0-^ C Quo 

•—•CO CO 03 O 
O >,X ^ VD 

U * CX I 

c z u o 

* O 0 03 O ON 

03 T CI <u c . . 
^'-zo:Eo3<cd 



>1 

CO 

CO 
(0 
O 



JJ 
c 

03 

c 



a 

E 
0 

u 



Secretary of Defense memorandum, "Prohibition of Sexual 
Harassment in the Department of Defense (DoD)," August 22, 1994 



Tab 6 




MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS 

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DIRECTOR. ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 
DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES 

SUBJECT: Prohibition of Sexual Harassment in the Department of Defense (DoD) 

It remains the policy of the Department of Defense (DoD) that sexual harassment irstrictly 
prohibited in the Armed Forces and the civilian work force. The definition of sexual harassment 
is as follows: 

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that involves unwelcome sexual 
advances^ requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual 
nature when: 

(1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term 
or condition of a person ^sjob, pay, or career, or 

(2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a basis 
for career or employment decisions affecting that person, or 

(3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably inteffering with an 
individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive 
working environment 

The above definition enq>hasizes that workplace conduct, to be actionable as **abusive work 
environment** harassment, need not result in concrete psychological harm to the victim^ but rather 
need only be so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would perceive, and the victim does 
perceive, the work environment as hostile or abusive [Note: ''workplace*' is an expansive term 
for military members and may include conduct on or off duty. 24 hours a day]. 

Any person in a supervisory or command position who uses or condones any form of 
sexual behavior to control, influence, or affect the career, pay. or job of a military member or 
civilian employee is engaging in sexual harassment. Similarly, any military member or civilian 
employee who makes deliberate or repeated unwelcome verbal comments, gestures, or physical 
contact of a sexual nature in the workplace is also engaging in sexual harassment. 



1B850 



Council Ta<V Forr. ™ r> ' D=f="« Equal Oppoitunilv 

iccommenaations to me to eradicate this illeeal behavinr Th»c^« j • 

U» .dopdon of addiUonal sexual i^^^^t^^^M^ '^'"""^ " 

contact Mr. aaibon,= D H^^^TAc^r^^^T^ " havc qa^dons. please 
Opportunity) at (703) 695-01oSn^01m' * "^^"^ 




Attachment: 
As stated 



Sexual Har assment Program Guidelines 



You are hereby directed to cany out a program that underscores DoD's commitment to 
eliininating sexual harassment from the DoD work place and to maintaining a work place 
environment free of unlawful discriminatory practices. As a minimum, your program shall: 

(1) Include the issuance of clear policy statements reafOrming that sexual harassment will 
not be practiced, condoned, or tolerated; 

(2) Establish training requirements for all nulitaiy and civilian personnel to give guidance 
on what constitutes sexual harassment and how DoD personnel who believe they have 
been subjected to sexual harassment may seek redress; 

(3) Establish quality control mechanisms to ensure that sexual harassment training 
programs are woiking; 

(4) Prohibit reprisals against individuals who make a sexual harassment complaint or 
provide information about incidents of sexual harassment and establish procedures to 
investigate and resolve promptly complajuits of reprisal by individuals; 

(5) Inform DoD personnel, military and civilian, that failure to comply with established 
policies may be reflected in annual performance ratings and fitness reports and could 
result in adverse administrative, disciplinary, or legal action; 

(6) Establish toll free advice and counseling hotlines for aU personnel to provide 
confidential assistance in obtaining information relating to sexual harassment aqd 
discrimination complaints; 

(7) Assign a high priority to the prompt and thorough investigation and resolution of 
sexual harassment complaints; and ensure that any corrective action taken is 
reasonably sufficient to preclude recurrence of discrimmatory conduct and addresses 
any management deficiencies or other contributing factors that gave rise to the 
allegations; 

(8) Make sexual harassment education, prevention, and complaint resolution high priority 
items for review in appropriate inspections of and visits to DoD facilities and 
agencies by the Inspectors General of DoD and the Components; 

(9) Provide semi-annual reports in the format requested by the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Personnel and Readiness) on your progress, the effectiveness of your 
programs, and your plans for the futiu%; 



(10) Ensure that affected personnel in the unit where harassment is alleged to have 
occurred promptly receive a report including investigative findings and corrective 
action, to the extent allowed under DoD Directive 5400.1 1, "Department of Defense 
Privacy Program/* June 9, 1982; and 

(11) Conduct and document follow-up with complainants and personnel in the unit to 
determine the effectiveness of corrective action and ensure that complainants are not 
subsequently subjected to reprisals or threats. 

To assist you in complying with these guidelines, the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Management Institute (DEOMI) will coordinate with your training organizations to establish 
minimum standards for effective military and civilian sexual harassment training. In addition, 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) will initiate a comprehensive study of 
sexual harassment in the Department of Defense and, in coordination with the DoD General 
Counsel, will prepare amendments reflecting the above guidance for incorporation into DoD 
Directive 13502, "The Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program," and DoD 
Directive 1440.1, "The DoD Civilian Equal Opportunity (EEO) Program." 



Administrative Measures for Correcting Military Offenders 



Tab? 



ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR CORRECTING MTUTARY OFPENDERS^ 



SANCTION 



Counseling 

Nonpunitive admonition/reprimand/censure 

Administrative withholding of pri vileges 
Adverse performance evaluation 

Reassignment of or relief from duties/early 
transfer/delay of transfer 

Denial of reenlistment/continuation 

Withholding/delay of promot ion 

Administrative reduction of enlisted membe rs 

Vacation of promotion to 0-7 



Suggested resignation/retirement/transfer to inaaive 
reserve status 

Administrative sep aration 

Retirement at lower grade 



REMARKS 

may be oral or written, of record 
or not of re cord 

may be oral or written, of record 
or not of record 



may be with or without adverse 
record entries 



Per 10 U.S.C § 625(a), the 
President may vacate such a 
promotion during an officer's first 
18 months of service as 0-7. 



if service secretary determines 
service at higher grade not 
satisfactory 

0-9 and 0-10 retirements require 
Senate advice and consent. 



Note 1: For the most pan. these measures are not mutually exclusive and may 
be imposed concurrently. ' 



TAB A 



Comparison of UCMJ Forums 



COMPARISON OF VCMJ FORUMS 



FORUM 


1 MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT 


Iremarks I 


Nonjudicial 
punishment (NIP) 


1 Punitive admciiutioa^q)rimand 
Forfeiture of pay (Vi monUi's pay for 2 months) 

1 Reduction in grade (enlisted) 

1 Extra duties (enlisted) (45 days) 

Restriction to specified limits (60 days) 

Correctional custody (enlisted) (30 days) 

Arrest in quarters (officexs) (30 days) 

Confinement on bread/water (enlisted members 
attached to/embarked in a vessel) P days) 


I Limited pimishments for 
1 "minor* offenses. Neither a 
1 judicial nor a criminal 
1 proceeding. 

1 Permissible punishments vary 
1 depending on the gradotank of 1 
1 the ofEender as weU as the 1 
1 grade^ranlc/position of the | 
1 ofiBcer imposing punishment 1 

1 Other options include ditmifKl 1 
j of charges, refernl to court* I 
1 niartial, referral to a superior || 
authority for disposition, or 
postponement of action (e.g., 
1 pending further investigation). 


Summary 
Coun-Maitial 


Punitive reprimand 

Restriction for 2 months 

Forfeiture/fine of 2/3 pay per month for 1 month 

Hard lahnr with Af it rufinftw-a— ^-m-w.! AC 

AMiu Muui wiuiijul conzmcmeni lor 4d oays 

Reduction to lowest pay grade 

Coofmemeot for 1 month | 


Can only try enlisted members 

Member has absolute ri^t to 
refuse 

Permissible punishments may 
vary depending on the rank of 
the offender 


Special 
Coun-Martial 


Punitive reprimand 1 
Restriction for 2 months 

Forfeiture/zjne of 2/3 pay per month for 6 months 

Hard labor without confinement for 3 months | 
(enlisted) | 

Reduction to lowest pay grade (enlisted) | 

LAfiS nmfnntinn mimtTi r inft\ it— \ 1 
&i*#ao ui piuniuiiuu OUZDDCrS |0ziicersi 1 

Confinement for 6 months (enlisted) 1 
Bad-conduct discharge (enlisted) 1 


Punishment options depend 
upon the offenses involved (see 

TAB Q up to the maTitwmp 

jurisdictional limits of a special 
court-martial as indicated at 
left. 


General 
Coun-martial 


See TAB C { 


Punishment only limited by the 1 
maximums authorized for | 
ofiense(s) involved | 



TAB B 



Charging Sexual Harassment and Other Discrimination Under the 

UCMJ 



Tab 9 



u 
:^ 

u 

mm 

H 

U 

o.. 
is 

©•g 

•<.-2 
ZS 

15 

» > 

^ s 

^ O 

<f 
II 

< Si 

u 



< 



(A 8 

S2 



u 
•J 

u 

C 

< 



c 

u 



5:. 



c 



> — 



8s 
Jl 

> 9 



.s.s 
^1 



ca 



d 
a 




<0 



3 
C 



10 

O ii 



9^ 



«> o 



-I 
M 

tf 

EES 

Is'i 

giS 
8»-s 



CM 

c 



C o 




00 



V9 
3 « - 

— if - 3 3 
« « > 10 

Si si 

•§ So 8.S 
8-12 = 2 S 
8.5 

^ 2 — t 

c S)|. 

3 S O O Q. 



SO 



-Si. 



S 
E 

z 

o 

00 



o 



o 



8 
S 

L* O 

» B.S 

e e e 

in 

> « « 

> > > 

? CO « 

OJiJS 

hi 

E|| 

lii 



Q 
U 
B 



3 



00 



I ill 



8 

Mi 



i 

z 

s? 
? 



8.? 
S3 

32 



5 



00 

3 



?8 



O 00 

s 



•c 



tj 2 «■ •> 
a 



I": 

"C 

.«>» 

si 

ir 



4> 

E 



I? 

E« 



oog 



3 4> 



-5« > 
EES S 



E o 

§§ls^ 

« • > « 



09 

§•8 

I' 
•as. 

>ut; 



I 



.E o 



00 

.S 
•g 

9 
O 

«> 

> 

I 

o 

>^ 
e 



UTS 



-••58 



I SI 



8^3 



00 



9 



-8 



ft 

o 



o 

Q 



o 
E 



s 



K 



1 



00 

s. 

00 

c 

I 



•3 

9 



I 

u 



3 M 



CO C 

IS 



s 



^E-S 

Z CO u 



c 



Z E 

R 8 

^ BP 
ft. ^ 



UJ 

i 

< 



o 
< 



o 

3 

I 

1 



51 



8J 

8- 
e > 



1? 



11 

=1 



IS 



E. 



OC/D 

aP 

IT CO 

> «i 



OS 



O 

SO 
11 



rs 



o 
E 

O 



« 5 




E 

Q 

U 



3 



- i5 





At ^ a 

^ V c 




10— >.'= 
S (0 c > 




failing to take adeqi 
climate free of sexu 

or disaimination» i 
» or protect viclimsA 
iais 


mization: unduly fam 
nopriate personal relat 
h need not necessarily 










si «= o 



§1 
*>" 
^ ft 

8i£ 



to 

o s 

■gl 
ii 



5l 




6 

m 



Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, Review of 
Military Department Investigations of Allegations of Discrimination by 
Military Personnel (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense 
Inspector General: March 1994) 



Tah 10 



Department of Defense 
Inspector General 



Review of Military Department Investigations 
of Allegations of Discrimination 
by Military Personnel 




Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



Over the past several years, the Military Services have aggressively reviewed the 
quality and effectiveness of their equal opportunity (EO) programs. However, none of the 
Services* reviews specifically assessed the adequacy of investigations conducted in response to 
allegations of discrimination by military members. This review was undertaken to determine 
whether there was cause for the Department to consider modifications to existing guidance and 
directives in that regard. The report presents our findings regarding the adequacy of those 
investigations and sets forth observations pertaining to the quality of equal opportunity 
investigations and the Department's military equal opportunity program. 

In summary, we found that 86 percent of the Services' investigations of military 
discrimination complaints we reviewed obtained sufficient evidence to support the conclusions 
drawn and satisfied the criteria we established to assess the adequacy of the investigations. 
Further, in 48 percent of the investigations we determined to be adequate, the inquiry officer 
or equal opportunity advisor went beyond the specific issue raised by the complainant to 
identify factors, such as command climate, work environment and other leadership and 
management issues, that may have contributed to the incident. We found that those 
investigations that examined contributing factors may provide commanders and £0 program 
managers considerable insight regarding the overall effectiveness of existing programs, 
particularly in the areas of training, awareness and individual responsibility. 

We also found significant that the allegations were substantiated or partially 
substantiated in 56 percent of the cases reviewed and that substantial administrative action 
or nonjudicial punishment was taken in most cases. 

We made the following observations: 

o Feedback to complainants regarding the outcome of the 

investigations of their complaints was documented in 65 percent 
of all cases reviewed, and follow-up to measure the effectiveness 
of corrective action taken or to detect and deter reprisal was 
documented in 6 percent. Feedback to complainants and follow-up 
should be required and documented in each case. 

o There are no standard definitions for any type of discrimination, 
other than sexual harassment, within the DoD. As a result, 
anything from an isolated instance of "name calling" to arbitrary 
personnel actions based on gender or race may be labeled and 
reported as discrimination. 

o The duties and the career paths of EO advisors vary among the 
Services. Further, the rank and experience of EO advisors may 
not be commensurate with the level of assigned responsibility. 

o The Services have initiated improvements in military equal 
opportunity programs. 



I. INTRODUCTION 



The most aggressive reviews of the military equal opportunity programs since the 
1970s occurred following the Tailhook incident of 1991. In July 1992, at the request of the 
Secretary of the Army, a panel of university officials and retired general officers assessed the 
viability of the Army Equal Opportunity program. In June 1993, the Air Force Inspector 
General reported to the Air Force Chief of Staff his findings regarding the effectiveness of 
sexual harassment prevention and the handling of related complaints. In August 1993, the 
Naval Inspector General reported to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations his findings regarding 
the effectiveness of the Command Managed Equal Opportunity Program, including the quality 
of oversight by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, and existing program guidance, roles and 
responsibilities of equal opportunity advisors, and the effectiveness of equal opportunity 
training programs. 

However, none of the reviews specifically addressed the adequacy of investigations into 
allegations of discrimination filed by military personnel. Hence, we undertook such a review. 
While we found the Services' investigations were generally adequate, our findings and 
observations confirmed the need for many of the initiatives under way and identified areas for 
increased emphasis. 

n. SCOPE 

Between August 13 and October 8, 1993, we visited three Army installations, one 
Navy installation (representing several naval commands), three Air Force installations and one 
Marine Corps installation.^ We selected the installations based on the number of reported 
complaints and geographic proximity. 

For the purposes of the review, we defined an "investigation" as any administrative 
process in which allegations of discrimination against military personnel were examined, 
evidence obtained, witnesses interviewed, facts established and a written report prepared. We 
defined "adequacy" as obtaining sufficient information to confirm or refute an allegation.^ 

We reviewed all documentation on file for 152 informal and formal inquiries conducted 
by commanders, inspectors general, equal opportunity advisors, appointed inquiry officers and 
military police investigators: 37 Army, 16 Navy, 88 Air Force and 11 Marine Corps.-* 



1 The review team consisted of field grade officers from the OIG, DoD, each Military Service, and the Defense 
Equal Opportunity Management Institute. The team represented 20 years experience in equal opportunity matters 
and approximately 15 years experience in inspections, investigations and oversight. 

2 The criteria we used to evaluate the adequacy of each investigation are at Appendix 1. 

3 We noted that the number of complaints reported by the Army and Navy major commands for the installations 
we visited was higher than the number of complaint records available for review. The Army reported 117 
complaints and 37 were available for review; the Navy reported 35 and 8 were available for review. Because the 
Air Force has a central repository for equal opportunity complaints, there were a greater number available for 
review. 



We interviewed 65 equal opportunity advisors, 33 complainants, 17 alleged offenders, 16 
commanders and executive officers, 12 inquiry officers and 9 judge advocates. 

In addition, we reviewed all Department of Defense and Military Department directives 
pertaining to the niilitary equal opportunity programs, roles of equal opportunity advisors, and 
the conduct of administrative investigations. We also reviewed the Services* Military Equal 
Opportunity Assessment reports submitted annually to the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness). 

m. FINDE^GS 

A. A<igquagy pf Ipvp^tigatipn? 

Of 152 investigations reviewed, we found that 131 (86 percent) obtained sufficient 
evidence and key testimony to support the conclusions drawn and satisfied the criteria 
established to assess the adequacy of the investigations. 

The following table summarizes our findings by Service. Six of the investigations we 
reviewed (4 percent) had insufficient documentation to determine the adequacy of the 
investigation. 



ADEQUACY OF INVESTIGATIONS BY SERVICE 


SERVICE 


ADEQUATE 


INADEQUATE INSUFFICIENT 


TOTAL 








DOCUMENTATION 




ARMY 


26 


8 


3 


37 


NAVY 


14 


1 


1 


16 


AIR FORCE 


81 


5 


2 


88 


MARINE CORPS 


10 


1 


0 


11 


TOTAL 


131 


15 


6 


152 



For those investigations determined to be inadequate, one or more of the following 
deficiencies was noted: 

o The specific allegations were not addressed, 
o Complainant or key witnesses were not interviewed, 
o Inquiry officers asked closed-ended questions without adequate 
follow-up. 

o The analysis of the evidence was inadequate. 

o Reports were conclusionary with no discussion of the evidence or 

supporting documentation, 
o Reports contained opinions unsupported by the evidence, 
o Conflicting testimony was not resolved, 
o Corroborating testimony was not sought. 



2 



In 63 cases (48 percent) of the investigations determined to be adequate, we found that 
the inquiry officers and equal opportunity advisors went beyond addressing the specific issues 
raised in the complaint and identified factors such as management, leadership and training 
deficiencies that may have contributed to the occurrence of the incident. 

Many of the factors the inquiry officers and equal opportunity advisors pursued focused 
on command climate. Some of the specific factors addressed included work environments in 
which sexual or racial comments and joking had been tolerated and engaged in by supervisory 
personnel, inconsistent actions on the part of supervisory personnel creating either the 
appearance of favoritism or leading to perceptions of discrimination, and failure of supervisory 
personnel who were aware of sexual harassment or other discriminatory conduct to take 
appropriate action. In several cases, the inquiry officer or EO advisor also researched whether 
the individuals involved had recently attended equal opportunity training. 

We found the investigations that identified contributing factors may provide 
commanders and EO program managers considerable insight regarding the overall 
effectiveness of existing programs, particularly in the areas of training, awareness and 
individual responsibility. 

We also found significant that 85 (56 percent) of the investigations fully or partially 
substantiated the complaint. Of those substantiated, nonpunitive administrative action 
(i.e., letter of counseling or reprimand) was taken in 58 cases (68 percent) and nonjudicial 
punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was taken in 20 cases (24 
percent)."* The data indicated that substantiated cases in the Army and the Air Force were 
more likely to result in administrative actions while substantiated cases in the Navy more often 
resulted in nonjudicial punishment under the UCMJ.^ 

B. Feedback ^d ppUow-yp 

Feedback to complainants regarding the outcome of the investigation into their 
complaint was documented in 65 percent of all cases reviewed, and follow-up to measure the 
effectiveness of corrective action taken or to detect and deter reprisal was documented in 6 
percent. 

All of the Services' equal opportunity regulations require that the commander, designee 
or EO advisor provide feedback to the complainant regarding the outcome of an investigation. 
The data also indicated a vast disparity by Service. Specifically, we found documentation of 
feedback to complainants in 22 percent of Army cases, 6 percent of Navy cases, 97 percent of 
Air Force cases and 45 percent of Marine Corps cases. 

Related to feedback is the issue of follow-up. Department of Defense Directive 
1350.2, Military Equal Opportunity Program, requires "fair, impartial and timely 



4 No documentation was contained in the other seven case files to indicate what, if any, corrective action had 
been taken. 

5 Appendix 6 provides a table of corrective action for each case reviewed. 



3 



investigation, resolution, and follow-up" of equal opportunity complaints. However, the 
Directive does not specifically define what actions may constitute -follow-up:" Nonetheless, 
the Services' equal opportunity regulations require assessment of the effectiveness of the 
programs, of which complaint resolution is an integral part. The Services regulations also 
prohibit reprisal for filing equal opportunity complaints and some regulations mandate follow- 
up to ensure reprisal does not occur. 

We found documentation of follow-up in only six percent of the cases reviewed. The 
Air Force is the only Service that has a standard form that provides a designated block to 
annotate follow-up with complainants concerning reprisal. However, we found that those 
designated blocks were most often used to document administrative matters rather than to 
assess the effectiveness of corrective action taken or the incidence of reprisal. 

Commanders, inquiry officers and equal opportunity advisors must be alert to any 
indication from complainants or other source that the potential for reprisal exists. The 
following example demonstrates the point: Documentation of an interview of the alleged 
offender by the inquiry officer indicated the alleged offender made an explicit, violent threat 
against the complainants.^ Although the reviewing officials made note that the comment had 
been made, no documentation was found that indicated command officials addressed the 
comment. We also found no indication of follow-up with the complainants to ensure the 
alleged offender did not act on his expressed threat. 

In another example, the complainant was unaware that significant action had been taken 
against the alleged offender. That complainant told us that the offender had "told people that 
everybody involved [in the complaint] was going to get what they deserve." She also said that 
she had been subjected to subtle forms of reprisal, had been taunted by peers, and, as a result, 
planned to separate from the Service when she completed her enlistment. 

We found through interviews with complainants that those who received feedback had 
greater confidence in their command than those who did not, and that the lack of feedback 
fostered perceptions of command inaction and tolerance. Follow-up provides command 
officials the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of corrective action taken and the early 
detection and prevention of reprisal. 

C. Lack of DoD Definitions Complicates Analvsis and Reporting 

We found no standard definitions for any type of discrimination, except for sexual 
harassment, within the DoD. As a result, anything from an isolated instance of "name calling" 
to arbitrary personnel actions based on gender or race are labeled and reported as 
discrimination. 

The DoD Directive 1350.2 defines the terms "sexual harassment" and "discrimination" 
(see Appendix 2). All of the Services use the Directive's definition for sexual harassment. 
However, none of the Services use the Directive's definition for "discrimination." The Army 
defines "institutional" discrimination, the Air Force defines "institutional, arbitrary, and 

6 He told the inquiry officer, "These women better not let me see them again or I'll slam the f— out of them. " 



4 



personal" discrimination, and the Navy and Marine Corp have different definitions for the 
same term "discrimination," all of which could lead to different legal interpretations. 
Appendix 3 provides the complete definitions for "discrimination" published by each Service. 
According to the various defmitions by the Services, discrimination may be one or more of the 
following: 

o Different treatment based on race, gender, etc. (Army) 
o Depriving an individual of a right. (Air Force) 
o Denying an individual equal opportunity. (Marine Corps) 
o Denying an individual equal treatment. (Navy) 
o Any action that unlawfully or unjustly results in unequal treatment. 
(Air Force) 

o Using terms to degrade or infer negative statements pertaining to 
race, gender, etc. (Air Force) 

The lack of standard defmitions creates the situation where an action or offense could be 
considered "discrimination" in one Service, but not in another. 

Further, the Directive requires that Service policies cite specific action to be taken 
against any individual who commits "an act of discrimination" yet the Directive does not 
provide parameters or criteria by which to make such a determination except in the case of 
sexual harassment. As a result, we found that the specificity of the DoD definition for sexual 
harassment compared to that for "discrimination" may result in "different treatment" of 
allegations of discrimination. For example, the definition of sexual harassment specifically 
includes unwelcome sexual comments or innuendo. As a result, sexually offensive or 
unwelcome speech may receive greater scrutiny and sanctions if substantiated than racial or 
ethnic epithets open to interpretation of much broader definitions of discrimination. The lack 
of standard definitions and terminology for "discrimination" may result in inconsistent analysis 
of conduct alleged to be discriminatory. 

Related to the issue is the impact the lack of standard terms has on the capture and 
analysis of discrimination complaint data. The following paragraph demonstrates both points 
presented: 

The Air Force uniquely defines as discrimination the use of any term that "degrades or 
infers negative statements" pertaining to age, color, national origin, race, ethnic group, 
religion or sex. We found six Air Force cases where the singular use of the term "bitch" was 
investigated, substantiated and statistically reported as discrimination. The available 
documentation suggested that the other Services treat similar conduct as inappropriate or 
unprofessional behavior, but would not routinely label or report such conduct as 
discrimination. 

We believe the lack of standard terms and criteria for discriminatory conduct precludes 
an accurate assessment of the nature and scope of discriminatory activity within the DoD. 



5 



D. EO Advisors 



The duties and career paths of EO advisors vary among the Services. Further, their 
rank and experience may not be commensurate with the level of responsibility assigned. 

EO Advisor Responsibilities 

The DoD Directive 1350.2 does not specifically define the roles and responsibilities of 
EO advisors. The Directive requires that the Military Departments: 

"fill sufficient full-time staff positions and allocate sufficient resources 
to conduct all EO programs. Equal opportunity staff personnel shall 
be placed at a level that enables them to communicate effectively the 
goals and objectives of the program and obtain the understanding, 
support, and commitment of the organization's leaders." 

We found that the duties of EO advisors as described in Service regulations include 
broad management responsibilities that require considerable analytical skills such as: 

o Recognizing and assessing indicators of institutional and individual 

discrimination in organizations, 
o Helping commanders anticipate, prevent and eliminate EO factors 

that detract from mission readiness, 
o Collecting, organizing, and interpreting demographic data 

concerning all aspects of EO climate assessment and conducting 

trend analysis, 
o Receiving and acting on EO complaints, 
o Acting as technical advisor to investigating officers and 

coordinating on completed investigations. 

The chart at Appendix 4 provides a more detailed listing of the responsibilities assigned EO 
advisors. 

EO Advisor Training 

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) trains EO advisors and 
program managers. Over the last 21 years, the DEOMI has graduated over 12,000 trained 
personnel for the Armed Forces-active, Reserve and National Guard. ^ Active duty graduates 
total approximately 4,000 for the Army, 1,200 each for the Navy and the Air Force, and six 
for the Marine Corps. ^ 



7 A more detailed description of the major courses offered by the DEOMI is at Appendix S. 

8 The Marine Corps recently sent 16 active duty enlisted personnel to the 4-week course for Reserve EO 
advisors, which is a condensed version of the IS-week program. 



6 



One of the DEOMI goals is to "provide training for Armed Forces personnel who 
advise commanders and are assigned equal opportunity responsibilities in accordance with 
established criteria." The table below shows the number of graduates from the 15-week EO 
advisor course over the last five years. 









1989 - 


1993 




RANK 


ARMY 


NAVY 


■ A. '.WT% 

AIR 


MARINE 


TOTAL 








FORCE 


CORPS 




E-4 






4 




4 


E.5 




2 


49 




51 


E-6 


38 


55 


49 




142 


E-7 


738 


56 


6 




800 


E-8 


29 


25 






54 


E-9 




13 






13 




14 


5 


2 




21 


0-4 


:, ■■4- 


1 


1 


1 


7 


0-5 




1 






2 


TOTAL 


824 


158 


111 


1 


1.094 



The Services send the majority of officers who are assigned to equal opportunity billets 
to the DEOMI two-week EO Program Orientation for Managers course. The chart below 
shows the number of officers who attended this course over the last five years. 









1989 - 


1993 




RANK 


ARMY 


NAVY 


AIR 


MARINE 


TOTAL 








FORCE 


CORPS 




O-l 


1 


1 


6 


2 


10 


0-2 


1 


3 


2 


1 


7 


0-3 


8 


36 


37 


7 


88 


0-4 


10 


10 


38 


11 


69 


0-5 


4 


6 


26 


2 


38 


0-6 


2 








2 


TOTAL 


26 


56 


109 


23 


214 



We interviewed 65 DEOMI graduates currently serving as EO advisors: 40 Army, 15 
Navy, and 10 Air Force, the majority of whom were enlisted personnel. The EO advisors told 
us that the training they received adequately prepared them for their jobs. 



7 



EO Advisor Rank 



As the preceding tables clearly indicate, the typical EO advisor is enlisted and in the 
rank of E-5 through E-8. The profile of EO advisors we interviewed generally reflected the 
same rank demographics. Although enlisted personnel also attend the two-week EO Program 
Orientation for Managers, the vast majority of attendees are officers. 

Interviews of the EO advisors, particularly those in the rank of E-5 and E-6, indicated 
that many believed their low rank was a barrier to effective communication with the 
commanders they advise. They stated they were unable to obtain the confidence and support 
required to fulfill their roles and responsibilities.^ Regardless of rank, several EO advisors 
indicated they did not have the direct access to commanders as their responsibilities required. 
Nonetheless, of the 16 lower echelon commanders and executive officers we interviewed, all 
voiced high regard for the services and support provided by their respective EO advisors. 

We did not further compare the roles and responsibilities of EO program managers with 
those of EO advisors or assess the level of interface each position may require with senior 
leadership officials. Nonetheless, experience tells us that functional advisors to commanders 
such as Inspectors General, Judge Advocates, Chaplains and Chiefs of Military Police, are 
generally officers. The Services may need to reassess the roles of EO advisors to determine 
whether their rank is sufficient to be credible with senior leadership officials. 

Related to that issue was the long-term benefit derived from the training. For example, 
in the Army and Navy, assignment as an EO advisor is a two to three-year special duty 
assignment after which personnel return to their primary career fields. For Air Force 
personnel, equal opportunity is a designated career field where knowledge and expertise may 
be developed over time. A number of Army and Navy EO advisors indicated that the tour 
length assigned as an EO advisor was insufficient to gain any real depth or breadth of 
expertise. 

EO Advisprs a$ investigators 

As a matter of policy, all Services prohibit EO advisors from conducting investigations, 
but allow them to conduct informal inquiries, the purpose of which is to determine if the 
allegations have merit and warrant further investigation by an inquiry officer. Nonetheless, we 
reviewed 55 informal inquiries conducted by EO advisors that served as the sole basis for 
command action without further inquiry by an appointed inquiry officer. In practice. Air 
Force EO advisors conduct far more informal inquiries than do the EO advisors in the other 
Services. 

Of the 39 informal inquiries conducted by Air Force EO advisors, we found 37 (95 
percent) adequate. Further, the allegations were substantiated in 28 (72 percent) of the 



9 The inspection conducted by the Naval Inspector General found similar fuidings regarding Navy EO advisors. 



8 



inquiries without further inquiry by an appointed officer. Of 12 inquiries conducted by 
Army EO advisors, we found 5 (42 percent) adequate, and 3 where allegations were 
substantiated. Of 4 inquiries conducted by Navv EO advisors, we found 2 were adequate and 
none where the allegations were substantiated.^^ Two of the Army EO inquiries resulted in 
nonjudicial punishment proceedings and one Navy case was dismissed at Captain's Mast. 

The Air Force currently requires coordination and review of equal opportunity 
investigations by an EO advisor, and pending revisions to Army regulations will also include 
that requirement. Marine Corps regulations require coordination with an EO advisor before an 
investigation is initiated. 

E. Militarv Department Initiatives 

The Services have initiated improvements in military equal opportunity programs. 

The Navy has developed and implemented the Informal Resolution System which 
promotes individual responsibility and accountability as the first step in resolving interpersonal 
conflict. The accompanying handbook disseminated to all Navy and Marine Corps personnel 
outlines key steps that each individual should take depending on his or her respective roles, 
i.e., the "recipient" of offensive or harassing behavior, the "offending person," a "third 
party," and the "supervisor." If the individuals apply principles contained in the Informal 
Resolution System handbook and are unsuccessful in resolving the conflict, then they may use 
established formal complaint channels. The Navy has also developed a handbook and 
investigator's guide that specifically addresses how to conduct investigations of allegations of 
sexual harassment. 

The Army has restructured its EO complaint processing to require documented 
feedback to complainants and mandatory coordination and review of investigations by EO 
advisors. Additionally, the Army has placed officer personnel in EO advisor billets at division 
and corps level and developed an equal opportunity handbook for commanders. 

The Air Force recently tasked the Inspector General to conduct and oversee EO 
investigations. 

The Marine Corps recently assigned its first full-time EO advisors to 16 installations to 
provide information, assistance and advice to commanders. The Marine Corps is also 
implementing the Navy Informal Resolution System and has revised its equal opportunity 
manual, developed a commander's handbook for processing equal opportunity complaints, and 
developed a new reporting and tracking system for discrimination complaints. 



10 We found corrective action included five processed as nonjudicial punishment under the UCMJ and 23 
resulted in administrative actions such as nonpunitive letters of reprimand, unfavorable information files or 
control roster action. 

1 1 There was insufficient documentation to make a determination of adequacy in three Army cases and one Navy 
case. 



9 



VI. CONCLUSIONS 



We concluded: 

o The majority of investigations of equal opportunity complaints 
were sufficiently thorough to confirm or refute the allegations. 

0 There is a lack of feedback and follow-up after the completion of 
investigative and disciplinary actions. 

o The lack of standard definitions results in inconsistent analysis 
of discrimination complaints and precludes accurate reporting. 

o Interviews with EG advisors suggested their rank and experience 
may not be commensurate with the level of assigned responsibility 
and may serve as a barrier to effective communication with the 
commanders they advise. 

o The Services have initiated improvements in military equal 
opportunity programs. 



Vn. RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness): 

o Require documented feedback to complainants regarding the 
outcome of investigations of their complaints to the extent allowed 
under the Privacy Act. 

o Require documented follow-up to determine the effectiveness of 
corrective action taken and to detect and deter reprisal. 

o Establish standard definitions for types of discrimination and other 
terms unique to this area for use within the DoD. 

o Establish recommended criteria and rank qualifications for equal 
opportunity program billets throughout the DoD. 



10 



Appendices 

1. Investigation Review Criteria 

2. DoD Directive 1350.2 definitions 

3. Service definitions 

4. Services Roles and Responsibilities of EO Advisors 

5. DEOMI Courses and Number of Graduates 

6. Corrective Action Table 



11 



APPENDIX 1 
EO INVESTIGATION REVIEW CRITERIA 



1. Date of review: 

2. Seirice: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps 

3. Location of files: 

4. Complainant name/case number/identifier: 

5. Date complaint filed: 

6. Date investigation initiated: 

7. Date investigation completed: 

8. Type/authority for investigation: 

9. Complainant and Alleged Offender demographics: rank, gender, ethnic group, age, race 

11. Complaint factors: 

a. Same chain of command? Different chain of conunand? 

b. Conduct occurred on/off base? On/off duty? 

c. Type of EO conq>laint: race, religion, gender, national origin, age, sexual harassment, ethnicity 
and color. 

d. Nature of allegations: gestures, verbal, physical, personnel action, other. 

e. Allegations were: substantiated, partially substantiated, unsubstantiated. 

12. Inquiry officer (10) factors: 

a. Who conducted investigation— commander, appointed officer, EO advisor, Inspector General? 

b. Did the appointment of the lO coxaply with governing regulations? What process was used to select 
the 10? 

c. lO demographics: 

d. Was the lO outside the rating chain of command of the parties to the conq>laint? 

e. Was the lO previously experienced in conducting investigations? 

f. What training/guidance, if any, was provided to the lO? Did it include legal advice? Technical 
advice from DEOMI trained EO specialist? other EO advisor? Explain. 

g. Did the lO have or obtain a working knowledge of DoD/Service EO policy prior to conducting the 
investigation? 

13. Investigation factors: 

a. Were all allegations thoroughly addressed? If not, explain: 

b. Is there any relevant information the complainant submitted the lO did not include or address? 

c. Did the investigating agency/IO define the issues subject to investigation? If so, were they properly 
defined so as not to limit the fiill scope of the complaint? 

d. Was the complainant interviewed at the beginning of the investigation? 

e. Was the complainant kept informed of the status of the complaint/investigation? 

f. Was the alleged offender interviewed? 

g. Were witnesses listed by the complainant interviewed? 

h. Were witnesses listed by the alleged offender interviewed? 

i. Were any key witnesses not interviewed? Explain 

j. Is there documentation of witnesses* testimony, i.e., summarized, taped verbatim, statement? 

k. Were witnesses given the opportunity to sign or otherwise validate their summarized testimony as an 

accurate representation of what they said? 
1. Was the testimony taken under oath? 

m. Does the investigation include a thorough review of the circumstances under which the alleged 
discrimination occurred? 



n. Did the investigation include an analysis of how the victim was treated compared to others within the 

complainant's demographic group and with those of other demographic groups? 
o. Did the investigation identify any related policies or practices or issues that may constitute, or appear 

to constitute, discrimination even though they may not have been raised by the complainant? 
p. If discrimination and/or the allegations were unsubstantiated, were any management deficiencies 

identified that may have contributed to the allegations addressed and corrected? 
q. Is there documentation of the IO*s questions? If so, were the questions worded in such a manner to 

address specifically the allegations? If there is no documentation of the questions, do the responses 

specifically address the allegations? 
r. Did the lO clearly and objectively present the facts of the case? 

s. Are the opinions of the 10 clearly identified as such and distinct from the factual and documentary 
evidence? 

t. Is there any evidence of bias (a highly personal and unreasoned distortion of judgment) by the lO? 

u. Is there any evidence the complainant rather than the complaint was investigated? 

v. Are the conclusions sound, logical and supported by the facts? 

w. Are the recommendations, if present, appropriate for the circumstances? 

X. Was there a legal review of the report? If so, was the report found legally sufficient? 

y. Was an EO functional review of the report conducted at any level for adherence to DoD EO policy 

and definitions? If so, was the review by a DEOM I-trained EO specialist? or other EO trained 

advisor? 

z. Did the findings and the report conform to DoD EO policy and definitions? Explain. 

aa. Were there deficiencies, discrepancies, incongruities or nonconcurrences in the findings, conclusions 

or recommendations? Were they noted and corrected? Explain, 
bb. Is there any evidence that the conclusions were based on an erroneous interpretation of law or 

regulation or misapplication of established policy, or constitute a precedential nature involving new 

or unreviewed policy consideration that may have effects beyond the actual case at hand? 
cc. Were essential documents relevant to a fair determination of the underlying allegations contained in 

the file? 
14« Corrective action 

a. What corrective action, if any, was taken? 

b. Is corrective action documented in the case file? 

c. Was there any follow-up regarding the effectiveness of the corrective action taken? 

15. Responses to complainants/subjects 

a. Was a response provided to the complainant? Was it writt^? Verbal? Was feedback documented in 
the case file? 

b. Did the response adequately address the complainant's allegations? 

c. Was there verbal or written advisement to the complainant to report any reprisal taken against them 
for filing an EO complaint? 

d. Was the subject/alleged offender advised of the outcome? 

16. Appeal and redress options 

a. Was the complainant advised of appeal and/or redress options? 

b. Did the complainant seek appeal or redress of the outcome of the complaint? 

c. Pid the complainant present new and material evidence not readily available during the investigation? 

d. Did any appeal or redress authority find an erroneous interpretation of law or regulation or 
misapplication of established policy, or that the conclusions were of a precedential nature involving 
new or unreviewed policy consideration that may have effects beyond the actual case at hand? 

e. Did the appeal or redress authority adequately and appropriately consider the complainant's request 
for further review? 



APPENDIX 2 



Sexual harassment is "a form of sex discrimination that involves unwel corned 
sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of 
a sexual nature when: 

a. submission to or rejection of such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly 
a term or condition of a person's job, pay or career, or 

b. submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a basis for 
career or employment decisions affecting that person, or 

c. such conduct interferes with an individual's performance or creates an 
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. 

Any person in a supervisory or conunand position who uses or condones implicit or 
explicit sexual behavior to control, influence or affect the career, pay or job of a 
military member or civilian employee is engaging in sexual harassment. 

Similarly, any military or civilian employee who makes deliberate or repeated 
unwelcomed verbal conunents, gestures or physical contact of a sexual nature is 
also engaging in sexual harassment." 

DoD Directive 1350.2, MiliUry Equal Opportunity Program 



The definition for discrimination is not worded as explicitly, nor does it provide any context or 
conditions as does the definition for sexual harassment: 



Discrimination is the "Illegal treatment of a person or group based on handicap, 
race, color, national origin, age, religion or gender." 

DoD Directive 1350.2, Military Equal Opportunity Program 



APPENDIX 3 

TERMS FOR DISCRIMINATION AS DEHNED BY EACH SERVICE 

o Institutional Discrimination: Different treatment of individuals in 
an organization whicli: (a) occurs based on race, color, religion, gender or national 
origin; (b) results from the normal functioning of the organizations; (c) operates to 
the consistent disadvantage of a particular group. (Army Regulation 600-20, Army 
Command Policy) 

o Arbitrary Discrimination: any action that unlawfully or unjustly 
results in unequal treatment of persons or groups based on age, color, national 
origin, race, ethnic group, religion or sex and for which distinctions are not 
supported by legal or rational considerations. 

(1) Disparaging Terms: terms used to degrade or infer 
negative statements pertaining to age, color, national origin, race, ethnic group, 
religion or sex. Such terms include insults, printed material, visual material, signs, 
symbols, posters or insignia. The use of such terms constitutes arbitrary 
discrimination. 

(2) Personal Discrimination: the action taken by an 
individual to deprive a person or group of a right because of age, color, national 
origin, race, ethnic group, religion or sex. Such discrimination can occur overtly, 
covertly, intentionally or unintentionally. 

o Institutional (Systemic) Discrimination: the action by an 
institution (or system), through its policies and procedures, that deprives a person 
or group of a right because of age, color, national origin, race, ethnic group, 
religion or sex. (Air Force Regulation 30-2, Social Actions Program) 

o Discrimination: an act, policy or procedure that arbitrarily denies 
equal treatment to an individual or a group or individuals because of race, color, 
religion, gender, age or national origin. (Naval Operations Instruction 5354.1C, 
Navy Equal Opportunity) 

o Discrimination: an act, policy, or procedure that arbitrarily denies 
equal opportunity because of race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin to an 
individual or group of individuals. (Marine Corps Order P5354.1, Marine Corps 
Equal Opportunity Manual) 



APPENDIX 4 

ROLES AND RESPONSIBmiTIES OF EO ADVISORS 
ARMY: Reference: AR 600-20 

- the commander will be in the principal EO advisor's rating chain 

- the EOA must understand and articulate DoD and Department of the Army policies concerning EO 

- recognize and assess indicators of institutional and individual discrimination in organizations 

- recognize sexual harassment in both overt and subtle form 

- recommend remedies appropriate to reduce or prevent discrimination and sexual harassment 

- collect, organize and interpret demographic data concerning all aspects of EO climate assessment 

- assist commanders in the development of realistic affirmative action plans and monitor progress 

- train equal opportunity representatives to assist commanders in meeting their EO responsibilities 

- conduct or organize training pertaining to equal opportunity, discrimination and sexual harassment 

- receive and act upon individual complaints. 

NAVY: Reference: OPNAVINST 5354. IC, which states "commanders should use EOPSs to: 

- conduct EO training 

- monitor effectiveness of conuiand EO programs 

- assist in conduct of command assessments 

- participate in CMEO (command managed equal opportunity] inspection of subordinate conunands. " 
AIR FORCE: Reference: APR 30-2 

- advise commanders on equal opportunity matters 

- help conmianders anticipate, prevent and eliminate EO factors that detract from mission readiness 

- conduct unit staff assistance visits, interviews, observations, surveys and climate assessments 

- process complaints, conduct complaint clarifications 

- apprise commanders of discriminatory circumstances when no complaint has be^ submitted 

- serve as the focal point for the affirmative actions plan 

- liaison with advisory coimcils, special interest groups and on/off-base agencies involved in EO issues 

- brief commanders/first sergeants on policies, procedures, the base and unit EO climates 

- conduct human relations education 

- conduct trend analysis using security police, IG, military personnel office and other agency EO data 

- act as technical advisors to investigation officers and coordinate on the completed investigations 

- provide the senior installation commander a written assessment of the on/off base EO climate 



APPENDIX 5 



DEFENSE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 

The DEOMI cunently offers a IS-week curricula that develops a base of knowledge and skills that allows 
graduates to assess human relations climates in the organizations they serve, and to provide advice and 
assistance to commanders to prevent, reduce or eliminate discriminatory practices. Graduates are qualified to 
serve as full-time EC staff advisors. Equal opportunity advisors receive nearly 500 academic hours of training 
in communications, individual and group behavior, studies of major ethnic groups, aspects of power and 
discrimination, equal opportunity (EG) staff advisor skills, and Service specific studies. 

The DEOMI also offers a 2-week EG Program Orientation for Managers course designed to provide an 
overview of the Defense EG program. It is not designed to train EG staff advisors. The course addresses 
topics such as personal and organizational values, prejudice and discrimination, racism and sexism, sexual 
harassment, affirmative action concepts, unit climate assessments and Service specific program management. 
Graduates will have a greater understanding of EG issues and the action strategies necessary for effective 
management of an EG program and EG staff advisors, but are not qualified to serve as EG staff advisors. 

The Services identify military personnel to attend DEOMI for training as equal opportunity advisors (EGAs). 
Prerequisites include a record of outstanding performance, exceptional military bearing and proficient verbal 
and written skills. The chart below depicts DEOMI attendance from 1971 through 1993. 



O 
< 

cr 
o 



DEFENSE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT 
INSTITUTE 16- WEEK RESIDENT PROGRAM 




YEAR 



.-a-. USA 



U6N 



U8AF U8MC 



ID 
< 



H 
U 

> 

H 
U 

o 



X! 



u 

u: 

O 
> 

o 



fc 

I 



Z 



s> O UJ 

a uj s 

t; s 

= 5 8 

42^ o w 

O ^ u) 

r » J*/ 



o u 
z ^ 



or) 



si 



> 



o 
z 



I 



8 



< 

CO 



z 



I 



u. 
< 

D 



o 
z 
< 

< 
> 



o 

z 
< 



CO 



< 

CO 



o 
z 

z 

i 

< 



o 



< 

CO 

D 



O 

z 

z 

Q 
< 



u. 

< 

CO 



Si 

2S 



o 

z 
< 

o 

O 



o 
z 

X 



< 
Z 



u. 
< 



CO 
>- 
X 
Ok 



CO 



NO 



CO 



O 
Z 

< 

fiQ 

& 
> 



8 



< 

(O 



O 

z 

< 
> 



a: 



< 



ON 



I 



£3 
>- 



CO 

>- 

X 
flu 



CO 



LU 



Z 
< 

z 

z 

o 

D 

o 
fle: 

o 

o 
z 
u 

fiu 

CO 

D 
CO 

CN 

X 



£3 



CO 



CO 



UJ 



u. 
< 

CO 



.J 
< 

> 



LU 



u. 
< 

CO 



Q 
Z 
< 

U) 

< 
oa 

Si 
> 



Si 
>• 

< 
n 

a: 

> 



UJ 



< 

CO 

D 



u 

o 
u 
z 

CO 

< 
•J 

< 
> 

o 

tf: 

6" 
z 

a 

< 

PQ 
tC 
U3 
> 



o 
z 

z 
i 

< 



00 

UJ 



NO 

U) 



u. 
< 

CO 



z 
o 
z 



o 
z 

z 

i 
< 



o 
z 



UJ 



< 

CO 



0^ 

O 



Eli 
>- 



CO 



CO 



UJ 



UJ 



< 

CO 

D 



O 
Z 

z 

i 
< 



O 



O 



UJ 



z 
< 

o 

UJ 

u 

D 
UJ 

a: 

H 



£2 
> 

o 
z 
-) 
< 

flQ 

UJ 
> 



I 

CO 



UJ 



Tf 

UJ 



(O 



U 
O 
< 



n 

u 
o 



y 

u. 
o 
>- 

D 
O 

z 



2 

b 

u. 

I 



22 



a: 



o 



> 



> 
a: 
D 

CO 

i; 



o 
z 

i 
< 

X 

CO 



o 
Z 

Z 



CO 



2 



< 



O 
2 

2 

1 
< 



S 



< 



o 



o 

2 
2 

1 

< 

O 
2 



:4 

2 



< 

CO 



o 
2 



Q 
< 



D 
2 

2 

CO 

CO 

< 

U) 
0^ 



< 

2 
< 

fiu 

i 

U 



o 

2 

< 
n 

> 



DC 

CO 



2 



< 

CO 

D 



O 

> 
H 
D 
O 

< 
H 

12 

(O 

< 
Q 
m 

a 
a 

2 
ui 
a. 

CO 
CO 

8 



8 

ON 



CO 



Si 

•J 
< 

> 



CO 



< 

CO 



{3 



CO 
X 



CO 



< 

CO 

D 



a 

i 

2 
o 

u 
o 

2 
2 
< 

q 
o 

2 

Ij 

U) 
CO 

2 
D 
O 
U 

liL 

o 



Si 
>- 

< 

m 
ec 

> 



X 

CO 



O 
2 
< 

O 

u 

O 
a 

Ui 

Z3 

Ui 

PC 

2 



Si 



Q 
< 



a 



o 



o 



00 



O 
2 



2 
< 



o 



< 

CO 

D 



On 
CM 



fc 

2 

0^ 

O 
UL, 

O 
2 



< 
X 

CO 

oc 

2 



Si 
>- 



X 



X 

CO 



Ui 



Ui 



u. 
< 



Q 



!2 



CO 



X 

CO 



Si 

c 
u 
z 

d 

2 
2 
< 

H 

O 
LU 

O 
2 



O 
2 

!j 

UJ 

CO 

2 
D 
O 

u 



o 
z 
Ij 

CO 

z 

c 
u 

2 
C 

H 
< 
N 

2 
< 
O 
oc 

O 

ct: 



o 

2 
2 

i 
< 

o 

2 



2 



Ui 



< 

CO 



O 
2 

< 

GQ 
Q< 
UJ 

> 

< 



o 



o 



< 



< 



o 

UJ 



LD 



LU 



Si 



CO 
> 
X 

a. 



X 

CO 



Ui 



Ui 



IT) 



O 
< 



IS 
o 

H 

H 

U 
Ci3 



o 



Q 

i 

(In 



y 

uu 
u. 
O 
>• 

eg 

D 

a 
z 



OS 

fc 

u. 

2 



< 

OS 

S 

§ 

u 

> 



< 



> 



£3 
< 

> 



C/3 



< 
D 



Q 
Z 
< 

Ui 

< 

Si 
> 



S3 
< 
> 

< 



uu 



< 

CO 

D 



00 



Z 

o 

D 
< 



•J 
< 



Ui 

o 

z 
< 



o 

X 

o 
u 



o 
«: 

Q 
(/) 
Z 

o 



z 
< 



z 

LU 

o 
u 

z 

o 



[2 
>- 

< 

OQ 

oc 

Ui 

> 



D 

< 



in 



< 



OS 



O 
D 

8 
o 

z 

CQ 

Q 
W 

o 
z 

u] 

o 

o 
z 
13 

Ui 

z 

D 
O 

u 



o 
z 

< 
m 

a: 

U] 

> 



X 



Si 

•J 
< 

CO 



CO 



< 

CO 

D 



Ui 

z 



uu 

g 

z 

o 



o 
o 

Ui 

o 
z 

Ui 

a. 

CO 



i 



£2 
>- 

< 

03 
Oi 
Ui 
> 

a 
< 

X 



NO 

UU 



uu 



< 

CO 



O 
Z 

13 

Ui 
CO 

Z 

=9 

o 
u 

Ui 

t 

z 

a. 
z 
o 
2 



o 
2 



CO 



X 

in 



UJ 



< 

CO 



> 
< 
X 

OQ 
U) 

!< 

£ 

o 

< 
Z 

i 

uu 
Mi 



< 
> 



a: 

C/3 



UJ 



UJ 



5 



z 
z 



X 

g 

o 
u 
z 

CL 
D 



>- 

< 
CQ 

> 



UU 



UU 



< 

CO 



12 
>- 

< 

CD 

Si 
> 

< 



UJ 



UJ 



< 

CO 

D 



Si 

>- 
< 

OQ 

> 



m 

UU 



♦ 

UJ 



< 

CO 



0^ 

3 



22 



< 



LU 



O 



00 



CO 

E 

o 
> 
< 

UL 



O 
u 

CO 

Si 

Q 
< 

b 
z 



O 

z 



o 
< 



CO 

O 



NO 

UU 



On 



< 



UJ 
CO 

> 
< 
a 
o 

1 



UU 

u. 

f 

UU 

g 

o 

Ui 

U 
O 



ON 

I 



z 

o 

E 

I 

>• 
oc 

o 

CO 

> 

OC 
Ui 
CL 

CO 

o 

LU 

< 
> 

O 



Si 
< 
> 



X 

CO 



LU 



lU 



o 



Of 

Q 



Si 



CO 

> 

X 

CL 



X 

CO 



UJ 



UU 



< 

lO 



UJ 

< 

< 

o 
a 
Z 
a 

Ui 
UJ 

U 

z 
< 
u 

oc 

Ui 

co 
O 

cc 

o 

Z 

o 
u 

Q 



Si 
< 

0 

OC 
Ui 

> 

< 



oo 
UJ 



LU 



< 

CO 



oc 

Q 



Si 



< 

flQ 
OC 

Ui 

> 



< 



LU 



LU 



< 
to 



O 
Z 



(O 

> 
X 

a. 



CO 



On 
CO 
O 



UJ 



U3 
O 
< 

a, 



< 



o 



X! 
Q 

< 



y 
o 
es 

D 
O 

z 



S3 



u 

Urn 

06 

2 



S 2 
o t- 
o < 

H > 

flQ ^ 
< O 



UJ 

CO 

U 
2 

O 

u 

2 



Q 



> 
C/3 



< 
D 



u. 
< 

CO 

D 



UJ 



< 

CO 



a. 
Q 



< 

CO 

:3 



































UJ 






















g 












































2 






















O 






















H 






















c 






















u 






















UJ 






















K 






















Q 






















UJ 






















u 












































UJ 






















a. 






















to 






















D 






















CO 






















CO 






















D 






















O 






















> 

UJ 






















a* 






















Q 


5 




















UJ 
























in 
































































< 


1 




















> 
































UCT 






















Q 
















flIC 






2 
















UJ 






C 
















Q 






U 
















< 






CO 
















UJ 






i 






















u. 
















2 






o 
















UJ 






















UDI 


NT 




z 

LlI 
















co 


MP 




TTI 
III 
















CO 


X 




< 
















< 


CO 




















O 


E 




96 
















UJ 


o 




£ 
















> 






















O 


o 




UJ 






u. 












< 




g 




D 


D 










UJ 


u. 
O 




X 


u 




g 










OS 






u 


Q 


o 




o 


g 






o 






CO 


















!3 




o 




































< 










u3 


£3 


a 


£3 


Q 




E 
< 


£2 




uu 


!ii 








>* 


z 




a. 


>- 


2 


>- 


>- 
























< 


< 




< 








< 






< 


m 


flO 


CO 


flQ 


CO 


CO 


CO 




CO 


«o 


n 


8i 


fi< 


>- 


0^ 




> 


>• 




> 


> 






UJ 


X 


UJ 


X 


Z 


z 


UJ 


X 


X 


UJ 


•> 


•> 






Cu 




CL 


> 


a. 


flu 


> 








o 














D 


X 


X 




< 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


< 


CO 


CO 


CO 




CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


o 












in 








o 




UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 




















rf 






















u. 






»n 


CN 


in 




m 








< 




UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Z 


UJ 


u. 


u. 


U, 


u. 


u. 


u. 


u. 


u. 


u. 


u. 


u. 


< 


< 




< 








< 


< 




< 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


(O 


CO 


(O 


to 


D 






D 


D 


D 




D 














<n 


VO 




C30 


ON 


O 








NO 




VO 


VO 


VO 




NO 


r- 







m 
o 
< 

0. 



PQ 

O 
P 

u 

> 
H 

X 

o 



X 

< 



y 
u. 

o 

O 

z 



S3 

D 
t 

g 



2 H 2 



8 % 

ill — 



< 



OS 

o 

u. 

o 

X 
X 

t 

z 

o 

g 

i 



0^ 

5 



[2 
>- 

•J 
< 

> 



CO 



c/) 



2 

& 
X 

5 



CO 



< 



0^ 

3 



•J 
< 

> 

D 
< 



UJ 



u. 
< 

CO 

D 



£3 
< 

> 

< 



UJ 



u. 
< 

D 



NO 



S2 

z 
o 

1 

< 

< 
m 

Si 
> 



[2 
< 

> 



CO 



On 
UJ 



< 

CO 

D 



3 



i2 
>- 

< 

m 

> 



CO 



UJ 



UJ 



< 

CO 

D 



00 



i 

Id 

CO 

Z 
D 

6 

< 
m 

Si 
> 



o 



CO 

> 

X 



CO 



UJ 



UJ 



u. 
< 

CO 

D 



On 



♦ 

S3 



CO 

X 



3C 

CO 



VO 
UJ 



UJ 



u. 
< 

CO 

D 



o 

00 



t2 

•J 
< 

Si 
> 



CO 



VO 
UJ 



UJ 



< 

CO 

D 



z 
z 
< 

CO 

z 

o 



z 
< 

D 

X 

uT 

5 

Q 



S3 
< 
> 

< 



in 
UJ 

UJ 
UJ 



< 

CO 



oo 



UJ 

o 

UJ 

U 
D 
O 



Q 

U 

CQ 

•J 
< 

I 



D 
O 

u 



S3 



CO 

>• 

X 

Ou 



X 

CO 



UJ 



UJ 

ui 



u. 
< 

CO 



oo 



0^ 

O 



S3 
>- 

ffi 

Si 



UJ 



VO 
UJ 



UJ 



< 

CO 

D 



00 



O 

E 

CO 

2 

> 

O 

CO 

> 

U 

U) 
a. 

CO 

O 

0^ 

u. 
O 

UJ 

> 

O 



UJ 
H 
co 

-I 

O 



o 
u 

3 



S3 



CO 

>« 



X 

CO 



VO 
UJ 



UJ 



u. 
< 

CO 



oo 



O 

z 

Zj 
u 

CO 

Z 
D 
O 

u 



Si 
> 



o 
z 

< 

CQ 



< 



UJ 

Q 



u. 
< 

CO 



VO 
00 



O 

z 
Ij 

UJ 
CO 

Z 

D 

O 

u 
< 

CQ 

Si 
> 



o 
z 



< 



CO 

a 



UJ 



< 

CO 



o 
z 
Zj 

U) 
CO 

z 

D 

O 

u 



o 
z 

UJ 



< 
X 

CO 



UJ 



UJ 



UJ 



< 



00 
00 



S! 
>- 



CO 
>• 



X 

CO 



VO 
UJ 



UJ 



oo 



u 

X 
O 

UJ 

O 

5? 

Z 

U 

CO 

5 

Q 

UJ • 

a 
z 

UJ 

a. 

CO 
CO 

Q 

UJ 

U 
=) 
O 

UJ 

8 

VO 



< 



O 
oc 

< 

c 

CO 
UJ 

o 
< 

Z 

u 

(O 

5 

Ui 

a: 
H 

CO 

Z 

O 
< 



Si 
>- 



< 

CQ 

UJ 
> 



X 

CO 



VO 
UJ 



UJ 



o 

ON 



O 



On 



Si 

O 
P 

z 



u 

D 

b 

u. 
u 

£ 



2 



> 



On 



CO 



< 

CO 



< 



o 
z 
!j 
ui 

CO 

Z 

o 
u 

u. 
O 

Ul 

z 

£ 

z 
o 
z 

< 



> 



UJ 



z 



On 



2 
< 

81 
> 



ID 



eg 

uu 
C 

i 

2J 

00 

1 

H 

CO 

< 

< 



UL} 



Z 

D 



NO 



On 

< 
< 

u 



23 



CO 



z 



ON 



CO 

< 



< 

I 

< 

Si 
> 



X 

CO 



LD 



z 

CO 



o 
o 



< 



22 
>- 
•J 
< 

> 



X 

CO 



NO 



z 

CO 



00 

ON 



X 

fc: 
p 

CO 

O 

u 

CO 
CO 

p 

U 

CO 

o 

O 



oo 

m 



UJ 



i 

CO 

Z 

a 

CO 

D 
CO 

>- 
< 

a 



23 

< 
> 



8 



o 

2 

z 

i 

< 



Z 



ID 



D 

o 

X 

U 



s 

CO 
< 

fc 
< 



z" 

o 

p 
p 
< 

U 
u. 
O 

06 
UJ 

fc 

Z 
P 
a. 

§ 



< 

> 



UJ 



< 
> 



z 

CO 



Q 
u 

CO 
CO 

CO 

5 

o 



< 

fc 

< 



o 

< 

flQ 
> 



UJ 



z 

CO 



o 

2 



8 



in 
O 



z 

CO 



o 



3 



< 

o 
< 



UJ 

H 
u. 

O 
z 
o 
p 

< 
z 



UJ 

a: 



22 
>- 



CO 

>- 

X 

a. 



X 

CO 



NO 

UJ 



UJ 



z 

CO 



O 



Ul 

P 
< 

X. 



O 

z 

UJ 
CO 

Z 
P 

o 
u 



* 

o 

2 



CO 

>• 

X 



CO 



NO 

UJ 



U] 

u 



u 
z 

D 

> 
UJ 



UJ 

u 



o 
z 
p 

u. 

Q 

u 

ft 

< 



UJ 

P 

UJ 

a: 



c 

2 

< 

CQ 
06 
Hi 

> 



X 

CO 



UJ 



O 



2 

< 

fc 

2 
ID 
O 
f- 
>• 

u 

o 
cu 

o 
m 

o 
u 

a: 

UJ 

fc 

UJ 



o 

2 

< 
aa 

UJ 

> 



On 
UJ 



UJ 



S 

H 

H 

U 



o 

u 



u 

uC 
u, 
o 
>• 

z 



Si 

D 
fc 

a: 

o 



(JU 



u] 



> 

in 



CO 

z 
< 

o 
z 

o 
z 

a. 
o 

Ui 

fc 
o 

S 

X 



CO 

D 



Ui 

O 

D 
tt. 
O 

Q 

Ui 



s 

0^ 



o 



2 
o 
< 



eg 

D 

i' 



o 
z 

z 

Q 
< 



o 



z 
D 



u 

CO 



o 

o 
z 
w 



z 
o 
2 



£2 

CO 

Z 

£ 

S3 

O 

z 

6 



< 

z 

1 

< 



ON 



o 

CO 



CM 



< 
Z 

< 
•J 

i 

U 
z 
2 

CO 

CO 

< 

Ui 

6 
z 
H 

CD 

z 

13 
ui 

CO 

z 

=) 

8 

< 



Ui 



2: 
u 



o 
> 
< 

X 
Ui 
OQ 
Ui 
t 



Ui 

fc 
z 

D 
§ 
< 

2! 

a. 

mi 
< 

CD 
U 

Ui 

> 



X 

CO 



Ui 



u 
IS 

CO 

D 



O 
2 

< 

flQ 
> 



00 



U4 



U 

CO 



o 

2 
< 

flQ 

ec 

Ui 

> 



X 



3 



Si 
>• 
.J 
< 

flQ 
> 



X 

CO 



ON 



so 



< 

CO 



z 
D 

< 

> 



< 

CO 

o 



Ui 

u 
o 

D 

a 

o 



CO 
CO 

< 

o 

UJ 
U) 



CO 

X 



CO 



00 

LU 



Ov 



< 
Ui 

O 

CO 

Z 

8- 

O, 

CO 
< 

Z 

o 

fc 

CO 

O 

a. 

Q 
Ui 

z 
2 

CO 
CO 

< 



Z 



2 
Q 
< 



a 



NO 



< 

CO 



o 



O 

2 
z 

1 

< 



< 

(O 



< 

flQ 
> 



(JU 



< 

CO 



S3 



LU 



< 

CO 



Z 

z 

i 
< 



LU 



< 

CO 



O 
2 



< 



6 

O 



o 



< 

<o 



O 
Z 

Ui 
CO 

Z 

O 

u 



o 

2 



o 
< 



LU 



LU 



< 

CO 



oo 

U 
O 
< 
a. 



8S 
y 

Urn 

o 
>• 

& 

z 



i2 



aa 
u 

H 

o 



O 

I 

< 



111 

u. 



2 

2 
O 
□ 
< 



I 

Z 

o 
< 

0Q 



O 
Z 

D 
Z 
u 



0^ 



< 



O 
U 

H 



22 



o 
z 

8i 

6 



z 



g 

> 

s 

CO 

Q 



2 



52 



8 

u. 

Q 
Z 
< 



00 



a:: 
o 



CO 

O 



z 

1 
< 



>- 



CO 

>- 
a. 



u. 
Z3 



X 

a. 



o 



< 



>• 
u 
> 

D 
CO 
Ui 

!< 

U 
O 



o 

2 
z 

< 



z 

o 

t 

z 

o 

1 

< 
o 

! 

z 

g 

z 

i 



Ui 



z 
u 
u 

.2 



CD 
Q 

LU 

o 
z 

o 



8 



10 

X 



Si 
>- 

< 

> 



y 
u 

a 

z 

o 

y 
z 

s 

I 

z 

o 

z 
< 
o 

O 

22 



c 
2 

z 

o 
< 



z 

u 

V3 



O 
> 

z 



D 
< 

O 

O 
-J 

uj 

(I 
O 

U] 

O 

z 

LU 

5 

C 
hi 

O 



z 

D 



£2 
>- 



0^ 

> 



Ui 

> 

D 
CO 

o 



o 

2 



1 

< 



LU 

z 
o 

a: 
>- 

u 

< 

< 



z 
u 

o 



1 

u 

D 

Ui 

O 

z 

:z 

o 

hi 
a: 



z 
D 



£2 
>- 

< 

fiQ 

Ui 

> 



U 

z 

O 

u 
> 

D 
<o 

O 

z 



< 

OC 
H 
wj 
Z 

o 

CO 

z 
S5 
z 

UI 
CO 

o 

LU 



[2 
>- 

•J 
< 

flQ 

> 



22 
>- 



o 
< 



2 

< 
•J 

cu 

O 
U 
u. 
O 

z 

o 



flQ 

<o 

>- 

-] 
u 

22 
z 

UJ 

< 
o 

LU 
UJ 

CO 

< 
UJ 
OC 

u 



D 

UJ 

D 
2 
UJ 
^ 

C 

u 

UJ 

o 

2 
C 
2 



C 
2 
-) 
< 

flQ 
Ct 

Ui 

> 



O 
2 

cc 

Ui 

z 



CO 



CO 



CO 



X 

CO 



CO 



CO 



X 

CO 



X 

CO 



X 

CO 



X 

CO 



6 



Ui 

O 



UJ 



LU 



LU 



tu 



LU 



LU 



LU 

t 

LU 



o 
5 

2: 
u 



o 



o 



LU 



o 



5 



LU 



LU 



so 
LU 



LU 



LU 



CO 



LU 



NO 

LU 



LU 



q 

00 

LU 



LU 



00 

LU 



LU 



O 



LU 



LU 



O 



LU 



o 



LU 



> 

WD 



< 

00 



< 

CO 

D 



< 

CO 

D 



< 

CO 



< 

CO 



< 

CO 



< 

CO 



< 

(O 

D 



< 

CO 



< 

CO 



< 

CO 

:3 



< 

CO 



00 



On 



CQ 
< 
H 

Z 
O 

H 
< 

> 

H 
U 

o 

u 

I 

Q 

Z 

S 



s 

u 

u. 
O 
>- 

o 
z 



£3 

D 

fc 

W 

I 



2 = 



> 



o 

2 



o 



Q 

Ui 

u 

CO 

>• 
Q 
< 



Q 
< 
X 



Q 
2 
Ui 

Urn 

9 

Z 

o 
2 



z 
D 

< 
> 



< 

on 

D 



O 
2 

z 

1 
< 



< 



u. 
z 

Ui 

O 



{2 
>- 

< 

flQ 

> 



OS 
U4 



< 

CO 

D 



22 



U5 
>- 

z 

flu 



X 

CO 



oo 



On 



Q 
Z 
< 



a. 

a: 
uT 

D 

U 
otf 
O 
bu 
u, 
uu 

Ui 
0^ 

O 
u 
Q 
Z 
iU 

O 
hi 

o 
z 



23 
>- 

fig 



X 

CO 



O 



< 



o 

XT) 



Ui 



z 
o 

1 

< 

u. 

o 

O 
u 
o 

1 



z 



O 
2 

UJ 
X 



X 

CO 



U) 



UJ 



< 

to 
13 



U) 



z 
z 

o 



b 

i 
< 

5 

bu 
O 



& 

CO 

Si 

CO 
< 

Q 
Ui 



i2 



(O 

>• 

X 



X 

CO 



u 

I 



< 

CO 

D 



DISTRIBUTION: 



Secretary of the Army 
Secretary of the Navy 
Secretary of the Air Force 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
Inspector General, Department of the Army 
Inspector General, Department of the Navy 
Inspector General, Department of the Air Force 
Inspector General, Marine Corps 

Commandant, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 
Commanding Officers of Installations Visited 



> 



Suggested Timelines for Complaints Investigations 



Tab 11 



Within 



Timelines For Investigations 



Days Complaints, except those filed with IG. must be acted upon in three woricing 

days, complaints filed with an agency against a member of the chain of 
conunand will be referred to the next higher command. 

I Days Investigating Officer (10) appointed by the commander has eighteen days to 

complete the fact finding, legal review and commander review sections of the 
investigation. 

7 Days Investigating Officer investigates the facts 

4 Days EO Review 

4 Days Legal Review 

3 Days Conunander Review 



7 Days Commander meets separately with victim to discuss written outcome and 

results of investigation. At this time the commander will also give complainant 
the outcome in writing. 

30 to 45 Days After 30 days following the final decision of the complaint, an assessment and 
complainant interview are conducted by the equal opportunity advisor on all 
complaints (substantiated or unsubstantiated) to determine the effectiveness of 
any corrective actions taken to detect or deter any incidents of reprisal. In the 
event of reprisal or when discriminating and harassing behavior persists, the 
EO advisor must notify the commander. 



Discrimination an 
Sexual Harassmen 



May 1995 
Volume II 



The Pentagon 
Washington, DC 



Defense Equal Opportunity Council 




Report of Task Force 

on 

Discrimination and Sexual 
Harassment 



May 1995 



Volume 11: Additional Materials 



A. List of Task Force Members 

B . Summaries of Task Force Briefings 

C. Chronology of Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policy within the Federal 
Government and the Department of Defense 

D. Annotated Bibliography of Reference Materials on Sexual Harassment in the Files of the 
ODASD(EO) 

E. DoD Directive 1350.2, "The Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity 
Program/' December 23, 1 988 

F. DoD Instruction 1350.3, "Affirmative Action Planning and Assessment Process," 
February 29, 1988 

G. Summary of Current Professional Military Education EO Training 



List of Task Force Members 



DEFENSE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL 
TASK FORCE ON DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT 



Chairs 

Dr. Sheila WidnaU 
Secretary of the Air Force 
Pentagon, Room4E871 
Office: (703)697-7376 
Fax: (703) 695-8809 

Dr. Edwin Dom 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness 
Pentagon, Room 3E764 
Office: (703) 695-5254 
Fax: (703)693-0171 

Panel Members 

Ms. Deborah Lee 
Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Reserve Affairs) 
Pentagon, Room 2E520 
Office: (703)697-6631 
Fax: (703) 693-5371 

**Mr. Stephen W. Preston 
Principal Deputy General Counsel 
Pentagon, Room 3E980 
Office: (703)697-7248 

Ms. Sara Lister 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (M&RA) 
Pentagon, Room 2E594 
Office: (703) 697-9253 
Fax: (703) 614-7975 



**Mr. Frederick F.Y. Pang 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) 

Pentagon, Room 4E788 

Office: (703)697-2179 

Fax: (703) 614-3889 

**Mr. Gilbert F. Casellas 
General Counsel of the Air Force 
Pentagon, Room 4E874 
Office: (703)697-0941 
Fax: (703) 693-9355 

**VADM R.J. Zlatoper.USN 

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations 

Navy Annex 

Office: (703)614-1101 

Fax: (703) 693-1746 



** Standing members were replaced by new members due to job position changes. 



**LtGen Robert Johnston, USMC 
Deputy Chief of Staff (M&RA) 
4020 Headquarters USMC 
Office: (703)614-8003 
Fax: (703) 614-3812 

**LtGen BiUy Boles, USAF 

MG Wallace C. Arnold, USA 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, USA 

Pentagon, Room 2E736 

Office: (703) 695-6003 

Fax: (703) 693-6607 

Mr. Derek J. Vander Schaaf 
DoD Deputy Inspector General 
400 Army Navy Drive 
Office: (703) 604-8300 
Fax: (703) 693-4749 

RADM Pat Tracey, J-1 

Director for Manpower and Personnel, Joint 

Staff 

Pentagon, Room 1E948 
Office: (703) 697-6098 
Fax: (703) 693-1596 



Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, USAF 
Pentagon, Room 4E194 
Office: (703) 697-6088 
Fax: (703) 614-5436 or 
(703) 697-0903 



Ms. Katherine Archuleta 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 7th Street, SW 

Room 10200 

Washington, DC 20590 

Office: (202) 366-6800 

Fax: (202) 366-3956 

Walter Sommerville 
Chief, Office of Civil Rights 
U. S. Coast Guard (G-H) 
2100 2nd Street, SW 
Room 2400 

Washington, DC 20593 
Office: (202) 267-1562 
Fax: (202) 267-4282 



** Standing members were replaced by new members due to job position changes. 



2 



New Members 



Mr. Frederick F. Y.Pang 
Assiatant Secretary of Defense 
(Force Management Policy) 
Pentagon Room, 3E785 
Office: (703) 697-2086 
Fax: (703) 695-4046 

Ms. Judith Miller 
DoD General Counsel 
Pentagon, Room 3E980 
Office: (703) 695-3341 
Fax: (703) 693-7278 

Mr. Bernard Rostker 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) 

Pentagon, Room 4E788 

Office: (703)697-2179 

Fax: (703)614-3889 



VADM Frank Bowman, USN 

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (M&P) 

Navy Annex 

Room 2072AA 

Office: (703)614-1101 

LtGen George R. Christmas, USMC 
Deputy Chief of Staff (M&RA) 
4020 Headquarters USMC 
Office: (703)614-8003 
Fax: (703) 614-3812 

LtGen Eugene E. Habiger,USAF 
Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, USAF 
Pentagon, Room 4E194 
Office: (703) 697-6088 
Fax: (703)614-5436 

Ms. Florence Madden 

Assistant General Counsel of the Air Force 

Pentagon, Room 4C948 

Office: (703) 695-5663 

Fax: (703) 695-3355 



Standing members were replaced by new members due to job position changes. 



3 



Task Force Support 



Mr. William Leftwich 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Equal Opportunity) 
Room 3D285 
Office: (703) 693-2693 

Mr. Claiborne D. Haughton Jr. 
Principal Director, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Equal Opportunity) 
Pentagon, Room 3A272 
Office: (703) 695-0105 
Fax: (703) 695-4619 

Ms. Lori Hendricks 
Executive Secretary 
Pentagon, Room 4C759 
Office: (703) 695-6492 
Fax: (703) 693-6708 



New Support Member 

LtCol John Andrew, USAF 
Pentagon, Room 4D865 
Office: (703) 695-1323 



Deputy 
for 



Ms. Adiianne Coins 
Executive Secretary 
Pentagon, Room 3C980 
Office: (703)697-0617 
Fax: (703) 697-3403 

Mr. James Love 
Pentagon, Room 3A272 
Office: (703) 697-8361 
Fax: (703) 695-4619 

Mr. Jerry Anderson 
Pentagon, Room 3A272 
Office: (703) 697-8361 
Fax: (703) 695-4619 

**Col John Cox, USAF 
Pentagon, Room 5C238 
Office: (703) 697-4720 
Fax: (703) 695-4083 



** Standing members were replaced by new members due to job position changes. 



4 



t 



Summaries of Task Force Briefings 



Tab B 



DEFENSE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL 
TASK FORCE ON DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT 



SUMMARY OF BRIEFINGS 



Weekl Friday May 13 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Executive Session I 

- Preparation for Task 
Force Report 

Dr. Widnall opened the meeting and asked for introductions by task force panel 
members. She explained to the members the administrative operations of the task force supported 
by a coordinating staff She went on to suggest that the coordinating staff create a matrix to show 
the differences between each Service's complaints processing system. The office of the deputy 
assistant secretary of defense for equal opportunity was asked to establish and support a 
reference library with an annotated bibliography for members use. 

The group then focused on its mission and the briefings needed to fulfill its mission. The 
co-chairs explained that, although the task force was established as part of the Department's 
broad sexual harassment policy action plan, its mission is to examine the Services' 
discrimination complaints processing systems to include both sexual harassment and 
discrimination. All agreed that the DoDIG should begin briefing the group, followed by Service 
and Coast Guard briefings (to include reserve components). 

The meeting concluded with the advisability of hearing testimony from alleged victims 
of sexual harassment and discrimination. At this time, the group was unable to reach consensus, 
and planned to re-visit this issue at a later date. 



Week 2 Thursday May 19 10:00 - 11:00 a.m. DoD IG Briefing 
DODIG 

Michael Suessmann, Assistant Inspector General for Departmental Inquiries, 
briefed the Task Force on the work of the Office of the DoD Inspector General in 
areas related to investigations of discrimination and sexual harassment. He stated: 

Two areas in particular are the focus of most of the criticisms 
and complaints we have seen. . . . first, the lack of established 
appeal rights and procedures . . . and second, issues relating to 
protection of complainants from reprisal. 

Mr. Suessmann discussed several additional issues such as standards for adequacy of 
investigations, feed-back and follow-up, uniform definitions, and utilization of EO 
advisors. 



Week 3 Tuesday May 26 3:30 - 5:00 pan. Service Briefing I (USN) 

(Reserve Components) 

USN 

Frederick F. Y. Pang, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 
briefed tiie Task Force on the Navy's equal opportunity program and its discrimination 
complaints processing system. He emphasized the collaborative nature of the Navy system and 
focused on six key elements: the availability of both formal and informal mechanisms; multiple 
complaint channels; prevention programs; annual. Navy-wide training; the Navy Equal 
Opportunity/Sexual Harassment Survey; and the victims' advocate program. 

Week 4 Wednesday June 1 9:30 - 11:00 a.m. Service Briefing II (USMC) 

(Reserve Components) 

USMC 

BG Les Palm, USMC, Director, Manpower Plans and Policy Headquarters, Marine 
Corps, briefed on the USMC's discrimination complaints process. He focused on reprisals, the 
USMC's sexual harassment advice line, training and utilization of EO advisors. 

Week 5 Thursday June 9 3:30 ^ 5:00 p*m. Service Briefing UI (USA) 

(Reserve Components) 

USA 

Ms. Sara Lister, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs, opened the Army briefing by stressing the importance of making women 
equal partners in military service. Discussion during the briefing focused on Equal 
Opportunity climate assessment, complaint processing timelines, the Army*s Equal 
Opportunity Hotline, feedback and confidentiality of records, the conduct of 
investigations, and the appeal process. 

Week 6 Wednesday June 15 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. Service Briefing IV (USAF) 

(Reserve Components) 

USAF 

LtGen Billy Boles, USAF (Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel), briefed the Task 
Force on the Air Forceps discrimination complaints process. He focused on complaint 
trends, personnel utilization, prevention efforts, complaint procedures, and 
improvements being developed. After the briefing, discussion returned to concerns 
about resolving certain complaints informally. Derek Vander Schaaf, Acting DoD 
Inspector General, explained that the Services* informal resolution processes should 



2 



not resolve allegations of rape or sexual assault, for instance. Task Force members 
also discussed the need for appropriate punishments. 



Week 7 Monday June 20 10:00 - 11:00 a.m. Service Briefing V (USCG) 

11:00 - 12:00 p.m. Service Briefing VI (NGB) 

USCG 

The US Coast Guard and the National Guard briefed the Task Force on their 
discrimination processes. Walter Somerville, Chief, Office of Civil Rights, USCG, 
opened the Coast Guard briefing by noting that all jobs in the Coast Guard are open to 
women. The Coast Guard briefer, Captain Martin Baskin emphasized formal and 
informal complaint processes, training initiatives, chain of command accountability, 
the Coast Guard*s sexual harassment prevention system, and related complaint process 
issues. 

NGB 

Ms. Deborah Lee, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, opened 
the National Guard briefing by stating that the Task Force should remember that the 
Guard is different from active-duty Services: The fact that National Guard members 
are on duty periodically presents unique challenges. Mr. Jack Broderick, Director of 
Equal Opportunity, National Guard Bureau, addressed the Guard's Equal Opportunity 
programs and its complaint process. Discussion during and after the briefings focused 
on program goals. Task Force members noted that the stated, key purpose of the Coast 
Guard's complaint system is to make the victim whole, while the National Guard's 
stated goal is maintaining readiness. Although these goals seem to be different, since 
Service personnel are readiness assets, the goals are identical. 



Weeks Friday Julyl 9:30 - 11:00 a.m. Executive Session II 

-OSDBriefmg 

- Admiral Boorda 

- In Progress Review 

OSD 

Mr. Jerry Anderson from the newly established Office of the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity [ODASD(EO)] briefed the Task Force on 
the DoD equal opportunity policy structure, the mission and functions of the 
ODASD(EO), processes for developing and monitoring civilian and military equal 
opportunity policies, and the role of the Office in the formulation and deliberations of 
the Task Force. Task Force members were informed that the Secretary of Defense, by 
memorandum dated March 3, 1994, established the ODASD(EO) as a focal point for 
DoD civilian and military EO programs. In that same memorandum, the Secretary 
elevated the Defense Equal Opportunity Council to emphasize management 
accountability for equal opportunity programs. 



3 



Admiral Boorda 

Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, addressed the Task 
Force on July 1. He expressed his commitment to making the Navy's complaints 
processing system better for sailors. He also mentioned that he is eagerly awaiting the 
reconmiendations of the Task Force. He concluded by stressing the importance of 
handling complaints properly and establishing a record of success so that Service 
members v^ill have confidence in the system. 

Week 9 Wednesday July 6 9:30 - 11:30 a.m. DEOMI 

Support Services 

DEOMI 

COL Ronald Joe, USA, Commandant of the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Management Institute (DEOMI) in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Equal 
Opportunity), addressed the Task Force on two occasions. On July 6, COL Joe 
reviewed DEOMFs mission and goals. The school's goals are to institute a 
commander's equal opportunity (EO) program, to promote diversity in key leadership 
roles, to provide extensive EO training to all levels within the Services, and to modify 
behavior so that Service members treat each other with dignity and respect. 



Support Services 

Ms. Gail McGinn, Principal Director, Office of the DASD(Personnel Support, 
Families and Education), briefed the Task Force on the family support program. She 
explained that the Family Advocacy Program identifies and prevents spouse and child 
abuse. She also explained that DoD opposed the House Armed Services Committee 
(HASC) proposal to develop a discrimination/harassment victims' support program 
and place it within the Family Advocacy Program for two reasons: first. Family 
Advocacy is akeady under-funded; and second, the focus of Family Advocacy is 
prevention. (For more information on the outcome of the House proposal, see 
discussion of the HASC staffers' briefing below.) 



Week 10 NO MEETING 



Week 11 Thursday July 21 9:30 - 11:00 a.m. Experts 

- Dr. Brenda Moore 

- Dr. Mary Rowe 

- Ms. Susan Barnes 

Dr. Brenda Moore 



4 



The Task Force heard from three subject matter experts: Dr. Brenda Moore, Dr. 
Mary Rowe, and Ms. Susan Barnes. Dr. Moore is currently in residence at the 
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute and on sabbatical from the State 
University of New York in Buffalo. In her briefing, she focused on the percentage of 
women in the active Armed Forces by race and ethnicity. She expressed her concem 
that race issues might surface as a significant problem for the Services in the future. 

Dr. Mary Rowe 

Dr. Rowe serves as a Special Assistant to the President of The Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology (MIT). She stated that there is no perfect harassment- 
prevention system; still, to prevent sexual harassment effectively, the Services should 
adopt a systems approach with back-up mechanisms of checks and balances. Dr. 
Rowe presented her "Specifications for an Integrated Dispute Resolution System for 
Dealing with Harassment" to the Task Force. According to Dr. Rowe, effective 
systems: 

• identify explicitly the special expectations of leadership, 

• emphasize prevention, 

• encourage effective, personal action to stop harassment 

and to prevent reprisal, 

• require prompt complaints and prompt complaint handling, 

• offer options for complainants whenever possible, 

• protect the rights of all parties, 

• treat reprisal as seriously as harassment, 

• provide a variety of helpful resources to all parties, 

• conduct follow-up monitoring, and 

• require meaningful data collection and evaluation of the process. 
Ms. Susan Barnes 

Ms. Barnes, President and Director of WANDAS Fund,^ described the work of 
both WANDAS Fund and WANDAS Watch. She explained that military women 

. . .want a workable complaint system [that] takes gender bias 
seriously and deals with the effects of bias promptly; they want a 
responsible gender neutral work ethic and a conunitment to a 
bias-free work space that protects them from the effects of 
discrimination and enables them to perform their jobs effectively 
every day of the week. They want respect; they want dignity, and 
above all they want leadership; they want the total, unqualified 
support and leadership of their commanders at every level of their 
chain of conmiand. 



* "WANDAS" is the acronym for "Women Active in our Nation's Defense, Their Advocates and 
Supporters." 



5 



Ms. Barnes concluded by saying that she agreed with the DoD IG*s 
recommendations and by urging the Task Force to undertake significant reform of the 
Services* discrimination complaints processes. 

Week 13 Friday August 5 2:00 - 3:30 p.in. Advisory Board on the 

Investigative Capability of DoD 
DACOWITS 

( DEOMI 

Advisory Board on the Investigative Capability of DoD 

Ms. Paula Boggs, Staff Director of the Advisory Board on the Investigative 
Capability of the Department of Defense, explained that the Advisory Board is 
assessing the criminal and administrative investigative capability of the Department of 
Defense, including the Military Departments. She also discussed recent legislative 
initiatives which relate to the work of both the Advisory Board and the Task Force. 
(For legislative outcomes, see comments of HASC staffers below.) Ms. Boggs 
concluded by stating that she does not support the establishment of a separate body 
outside the chain of command to investigate complaints of discrimination and sexual 
harassment. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1995 requires the 
Secretary of Defense to direct the Advisory Board on the Investigative Capability of 
the Department of Defense to include in its final report an assessment of whether the 
current DoD organizational structure is adequate to oversee all investigative matters 
related to discrimination and sexual harassment. The Advisory Board is also to 
ascertain whether additional data collection and reporting procedures are needed to 
enhance the Departments ability to respond to unlawful discrimination. 

DACOWITS 

Dr. Paula Shaw, a member of the Executive Committee of the Defense Advisory 
Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), also spoke with the Task Force 
on August 5. She and other members of the DACOWITS Executive Conunittee had 
recently returned from a trip to eleven U.S. military bases in Europe, where they 
interviewed about 3,000 Service- women. Dr. Shaw reported that, in general, 
Servicewomen feel sexual harassment is under control; however, they believe the 
grievance process needs significant improvement. In some conmiands, sexual 
harassment is not taken seriously, complaints are often handled improperly, and 
military women fear reprisal. In conclusion, Dr. Shaw asserted that a loud, clear 
message that sexual harassment will not be tolerated is essential to the success of any 
harassment prevention program. 

DEOMI 

COL Joe returned to brief the Task Force on August 5. At that time, he 
presented his recommendations for improvements in the overall military Services' 



6 



discrimination complaints processing systems. COL Joe and Task Force members also 
discussed current training standards, DEOMI's capacity, the mix and utilization of EO 
advisors, and the Navy's Article 138 process. 

Week 14 NO MEETING 



Week 15 Thursday August 18 2:00 - 3:30 p.m. MG Arnold, USA 

(10 Minutes) 

Defense Manpower Data 
Center (DMDC) 

HASC Task Force on 
Equality of Treatment and 
Opportunity in tlie Armed 
Forces 

Charlie Tompkins 
Carey Ruppert 



GAO Report - Review of 
Military EO Complaint 
Systems 

MG Arnold 

MG Wallace Arnold, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S. Army, 
shared his thoughts on "managing fairness" with the Task Force on August 18. His 
main point was that, no matter how fair-minded a commander is, faimess will not exist 
unless he or she takes concrete, positive action to ensure faimess. 

Defense Manpower Data Ctr 

Dr. Anita Lancaster, Assistant Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center 
(DMDC), briefed the Task Force on the sexual harassment survey being developed by 
the DMDC. She returned on August 30 to review the survey in greater detail with 
Task Force members. 

HASC Task Force 

Mr. Charlie Tompkins, staff member of the House Armed Services Committee 
(HASC), briefed the Task Force on the mission and activities of the HASC Task Force 
on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces. He noted there are 
significant differences in the Services discrimination complaint processes and there is 
widespread lack of confidence in those processes. He offered the Task Force three 
recommendations: emphasize the importance of leadership commitment, implement 
continuing training, and insist on constant monitoring. 



7 



Ms. Carey Ruppert and Mr. John Chapla, also HASC staff members, reviewed 
legislation relating to the work of the Task Force. Ms. Ruppert explained that Armed 
Services Committees members crafted the Whistleblower provisions to ensure that 
Service members who report discrimination or harassment are protected. Language in 
the FY 95 Defense Authorization Act Conference Report extends Whistleblower 
protection to Service members who report allegations of discrimination or sexual 
harassment to their chain of conmiand. 

Ms. Ruppert also reviewed the section of the Conference Report which covers 
DoD policies and procedures on discrimination and sexual harassment. The 
conference report calls for the Secretary of Defense to "develop a comprehensive 
Department of Defense policy for processing complaints of sexual harassment and 
discrimination involving members of the Armed Forces" The Secretaries of the 
military Services are to review and revise their discrimination complaints processes. 
The Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy are to ensure that those 
Services' regulations are as specific as the Army's regulations on these matters. 

Mr. Chapla also explained sections of the Conference Report which require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report on non-deployability, complaints of 
discrimination and sexual harassment, disciplinary proceedings, retention rates, and 
enlistment propensity. The Congress identified a need for a coordinated data base on 
these subjects. In another section, Congress requires the Secretary of Defense to 
establish victims* advocates programs. Specifically, the Services are to develop victim 
and witness assistance programs, family advocacy programs, and equal opportunity 
programs. 

GAO 

Mr. Al Huntington of the General Accounting Office (GAO) also spoke with the 
Task Force on August 18. He described how his office is supporting the work of the 
HASC Task Force. Task Force members noted that it is unfortunate that they will not 
be able to review the findings of the HASC Task Force and the GAO before 
submitting their final report to the Deputy Secretary. Task Force members suggested 
that the Services glean lessons and adopt recommendations from these valuable 
studies as they work to improve their discrimination complaints processing systems 
over the next year. 

Week 16 NO MEETING 



Week 17 Tuesday August 30 10:30 - 12:00 p.m. ROCKS, Inc. 

Special Session 
(closed) 



8 



ROCKS, Inc. 

MG Frederic Leigh, USA (Ret.) reviewed ROCKS' history and objectives. He 
stated that there is a declining pool of Black officers because this group has a high 
attrition rate. He identified four areas critical to career progression: assignments, 
promotions, evaluations, and professional military education. MG Leigh concluded by 
making several recommendations to the Task Force. For example, he suggested that 
the Services eliminate officer evaluation reports for all Second Lieutenants during the 
first twelve months of active duty, unless there is relief for cause or moral turpitude. 
Instead, the Services should use mock reports for Second Lieutenants as tools for 
counseling and professional development. 



Week 18 Wednesday September? 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. CAPT Georgia Sadler, USN (Ret) 

Director, Women in the 

Military Project 
Women Research and Education 

Institute (WREI) 
Association of Naval Services 

Officers (ANSO) 
DEOC Task Force 

Legal Working Group 

CAPT Georgia Sadler, USN (Ret.) 

CAPT Georgia Sadler, USN (Ret.), representing the Women's Research and 
Education Institute (WREI), spoke with the Task Force about sexual discrimination 
and sexual harassment. She began by saying that reprisal prevention is the most 
important element of a complaints processing system. In addition, the Services must 
be able to measure the effectiveness of their systems. CAPT Sadler made five 
recommendations for effective discrimination prevention programs: lift all combat 
restrictions, emphasize the key role of leaders, include discrimination prevention in 
leadership traming programs, make occupational standards equitable and sex-neutral, 
and conduct additional research to clarify sex differences and debunk myths. In 
conclusion, CAPT Sadler noted that the passage of time is part of the solution to the 
problems of discrimination and harassment. 

Association of Naval Services Officers (ANSO) 

Col Cecil Amparan, USMC, representing the Association of Naval Services 
Officers (ANSO), also spoke with the Task Force. After reviewing ANSO's history 
and objectives, he identified two key elements of an effective discrimination 
complaints process: visible command level support and clear understanding of 
environment in fleet or field (comprehensive databases, for example). 

Legal Worldng Group 



9 



Mr. Stephen Preston, Acting General Counsel, Department Defense, briefed 
the Task Force on the work of the legal policy working group. Working group, co- 
chaired by Mr. Paul Koffsky, Acting Deputy General Counsel (Personnel and Health 
Policy), and Ms. Florence Madden, Air Force Deputy General Counsel. The Legal 
Working Group examined seven issues related to complaints processing: definition of 
terms, standard of proof for complaint validation, legal sufficiency of investigation, 
disciplinary actions and sanctions, discrimination and sexual harassment under civilian 
personnel law, Service reporting requirements, and privacy act considerations. 

Mr. Preston offered the Task Force five suggestions. First, the Services need a 
common definition of "discrimination." Second, the Services need a single definition 
of "reprisal;" in particular, DoD and Air Force regulations should be revised to protect 
Service members who make complaints of discrimination to superiors from reprisal. 
Third, the Task Force should consider recommending that the Navy, Marine Corps, 
and Air Force adopt regulations similar to the Army regulation which covers legal 
sufficiency of investigations. Fourth, when developing reporting requirements, the 
Task Force should focus on the language in the FY 95 Defense Authorization Act 
Conference Report, as well as the issues raised in the DoD IG report. Fifth, the Task 
Force should consider drafting a legislative proposal which allows some (Privacy Act) 
information about the offender*s punishment to be revealed to the complainant.^ 

Week 22 Tuesday October 4 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. Executive Session III 

Discussion of Final Report 

Secretary Widnall opened the meeting by reviewing several of her concems about the Task 
Force's final report. General discussion followed concerning revisions to the DoD Directive 
1350.2; commander responsibility and performance appraisals; appeals boards for discrimination 
and sexual harassment complaints; and other miscellaneous issues. The co-chairs asked the 
principals to submit written comments to the Task Force support staff by October 7, 1994. 

Week 35 Friday January 6 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. Executive Session IV 

Discussion of Final Report 

The co-chairs opened the meeting by asking for comments on the draft report. Have we 
responded appropriately to the Deputy Secretary's request? In general, the principals agreed, the 
draft final is satisfactory. However; the principals did raise some concems including factual 
correctness, the appeals procedures, performance reports, standards, and changes to DoD 
Directive 1350.2. Task Force principals agreed that Service-specific language should be 
replaced with equivalent, non-Service-specific wording. While the principals agreed that clear 
appeal procedures are necessary, they do not want to add bureaucratic layers. The legal sub- 
group will revise the wording of the recommendation concerning performance reports and 



^ Section 532 of the FY 95 Defense Authorization Act Conference Report calls for the Secretary of 
Defense to submit to Congress, not later than March 31, 1995, a proposal for any legislation necessary 
to enhance the Department's capability to address discrimination and harassment. The Secretary should 
propose legislative relief from the Privacy Act for the purpose of offering meaningful feedback to 
complainants. 



10 



support of equal opportunity. Most principals agreed that standardization in the areas of training 
and investigations would be productive. Several Task Force principals suggested that the 
ODASD(EO) begin revising DoD Directive 1350.2. Group discussion of each reconmiendation 
in the draft report followed. 

Week 36 Friday January 13 9:30 - 11:00 a.m. Executive Session V 

Discussion of Final Report 

Secretary Widnall opened the meeting by continuing the group discussion of the report's 
reconunendations. The principals raised concerns about procedures for revising DoD Directive 
1350.2; standards; DEOMI training; confidentially of advice lines; and reprisals. The 
DASD(EO) will draft the directive and the Services as well as the Defense Agencies will 
coordinate on the contents. The standards that are implied in recommendation 7 need to be listed 
in the text of the report. The principals concurred that DEOMI's review and comment on Service 
EO training materials should remain in the report. All agreed that the advice or helpline must 
remain an advice line only with no records or action taken. The principals concluded that the 
definition of reprisal in Directive 1350.2 must be expanded to include "peer condoned" reprisal. 
In conclusion, Secretary Widnall explained that a paragraph would be added to the Executive 
Summary to discuss the progress each Service has made in the handling of EO complaints since 
the Task Force began. 

Week 38 Tuesday January 24 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. Executive Session VI 

Discussion of Final Report 

Under Secretary Dom opened the meeting by suggesting that the group continue to 
discuss the report's recommendations. Discussions concerning legal sufficiency, 
feedback/follow-up, and guidelines for sanctions followed. Under Secretary Dom suggested a 
revision to the text and the recommendations contained in the joint organizations and Defense 
Agencies section of the report. He asked the Task Force support staff to develop a list of 
unresolved issues and revise the draft as soon as possible. In conclusion. Secretary Widnall 
asked that the Task Force break for several weeks while the support staff incorporated the 
previously discussed changes. 



Week 51 Friday April 28 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Executive Session VI 

Approval of Final Report 

Secretary Widnall opened the meeting by calling for final approval of the 
report. Each member spoke and approved the final draft of the report. Admiral 
Bowman and Ms. Heath expressed concerns that were discussed by the members. Mr. 
Vander Schaaf chimed in and asked for the status of the directive. Mr. Love then 
began a brief update and said that ODASD (EO) hopes to release the directive in early 
May. 

The meeting concluded with Secretary Widnall expressing that she was 
pleased with the report. Mr. Dom closed by saying tfiat the next step would be to send 
the report for copy edits. 



11 



Chronology of Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 
Policy within the Federal Government and the 
Department of Defense 



Tab C 



CHRONOLOGY OF 
DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

POLICY 

WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 



25 Jun 41 President Roosevelt issues Executive Order 8802 which prohibits 

discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin in both 
defense industries "or government." A Committee on Fair Employment 
Practice is established within the Office of Production Management to 
receive and investigate complaints and to "recomniend" measures 
necessary to implement the order. 

27 May 43 President Roosevelt establishes an independent Fair Employment Practice 

Committee. The Committee is authorized to formulate policies and 
promulgate regulations, but it can still only make reconmiendations to the 
agencies. In addition to receiving and investigating complaints, however, 
the Committee is authorized to conduct hearings, make findings of fact, 
and take "appropriate" steps to eliminate discrimination, 

1947 A. Philip Randolph, President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, 

and Grant Reynolds, a New York clergyman and politician, form a 
Committee Against Jim Crow in Military Service and Training. The 
group's principal goal is to promote integration within the military and 
to eliminate quotas. 

26 Jul 48 President Truman issues Executive Order 9980 which prohibits 

discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin within 
the Federal establishment. Heads of each Department are responsible for 
implementing the policy and are required to appoint a Fair Employment 
Officer within their organization. A Fair Employment Board within the 
Civil Service Conmiission is also created to review agency head decisions. 
If reconmiendations made to the agencies are not complied with, the Board 
is to report to the President and make recommendations. 

26 Jul 48 President Truman issues Executive Order 9981 which declares as policy of 

the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for 
all persons in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion, or 
national origin. A Presidents Committee on Equality and Treatment and 
Opportunity in the Armed Forces (Fahy Committee) is established to 
examine the rules, procedures, and practices of the armed forces to 



determine which should be altered or improved in order to carry out the 
President's order. 



1948 The Committee Against Jim Crow in Military Service and Training shifts 

its focus to monitor the implementation of Executive Order 9981 in the 
Services and the activities of the Fahy Committee. It holds regional 
hearings which reveal the impact of discrimination and segregation on the 
psyche of black soldiers. 

22 May 50 President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the 

Armed Forces (Fahy Committee) submits its final report to the President. 
It concludes, among other things, that desegregation of the Armed Forces 
had been accomplished, but not integration. 

12 Jan 54 Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson issues a memorandum, "Schools on 

Military Installations for Dependents of Military and Civilian Personnel." 
The memo orders the integration of all schools on military installations. 

18 Jan 55 President Eisenhower issues Executive Order 10590 prohibiting 

discrimination in Federal employment based on race, color, religion, or 
national origin. An independent President's Committee on Government 
Employment Policy is established but empowered only to make 
recommendations to the President. Agencies are left in charge of their own 
programs, but must appoint an Employment Policy Officer and issue 
implementing regulations. 

6 Mar 61 President Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925. A President's 

Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity is established and made 
responsible for enforcing "positive measures" to ensure EEO in both 
Federal employment and by government contractors and subcontractors. 
Federal agencies are required to conduct studies of their current 
employment practices and to recommend positive measures to eliminate 
discrimination. Beyond that, however, despite name changes, the system 
established by President Eisenhower is retained. 

24 Mar 61 Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara issues a memorandum, "Non- 

Discrimination in Employment." The memo is intended to implement 
E.O. 10925 within the Department of Defense. 

28 Apr 61 Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara issues a memorandum, "Military 

and Civilian Employee Recreational Organizations." The memo prohibits 
the use DoD facilities or the sponsorship by DoD of any organization 
which discriminates based on race, creed, color, or national origin. 



2 



President Kennedy establishes a Committee on the Status of Women, 
chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, to look into problems encountered by 
women employed within the Federal government. 

The American Veterans Committee releases a report, "Civil Rights Audit 
of the National Guard." The report summarizes the findings of a recent 
investigation of racial practices in the National Guard. The report argues 
that discrimination and segregation is widespread in the National Guard 
and that the President has the authority to halt such practices. 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric issues a memorandum, 
"AvailabiUty of Facilities to Military Personnel" The memo announces a 
policy to provide "to the extent possible" integrated facilities on military 
installations to military personnel when such facilities are not available in 
adjacent or surrounding communities. 

DoD Directive 1125.4, "Equal Employment Opportunity," issued. 

The President's Commission on the Status of Women issues regulations 
requiring all appointments in the Federal govemment to be made without 
regard to sex, except certain positions involving custodial and institutional 
work and law enforcement jobs requiring the bearing of fu-earms. 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric issues a memorandum, 
"Compliance with E.G. 9981 in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine 
Corps Reserves." The memo directs that "all-Negro and all- White" 
reserve units be identified and integrated and that a review of the 
assignment of Negroes to reserve units be conducted to determine if a 
disproportionate number are assigned to pools. 

President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces (Gesell 
Committee) is created in response to allegations of continuing unfaimess 
and discrimination against blacks in the Armed Forces. The group is 
tasked to identify measures which should be taken to improve the 
effectiveness of existing equal opportunity poUcies and to provide 
equality of opportunity for members of the Armed Forces and their 
dependents in the civilian community. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issues a report, "The Negro in the 
Armed Forces." The report examines participation in the Armed Forces, 
occupational assignments, recruitment and promotion procedures, 
discrimination on base, community relations, housing discrimination, 
discrimination in education, and problems in public acconunodations. The 
report then makes six recommendations. 



The Secretary of Defense sends a memorandum on "Nondiscrimination in 
Family Housing" to all Military Departments. The memorandum directs 
that there be no discrimination in leased family housing or in listing, under 
Service auspices, private housing where there are limitations of access or 
use based upon race. 

The President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces 
(Gesell Committee) issues its initial report. The report emphasizes the 
impact of segregation and discrimination in conununities near military 
bases on Negro (sic) personnel. Practices which segregate or discriminate 
are declared to be morally wrong. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) Norman Paul issues 
memorandum, "Dependent Schooling in Closed School Districts." The 
memo directs commanders in areas where public education is segregated 
to counsel military parents on procedures available for the transfer of their 
children to integrated schools and on legal action as an altemative to 
accepting local school board decisions to bar their children. 

President Kennedy sends the Gesell Committee report to Secretary of 
Defense McNamara and asks for his review and report on the 
reconunendations within 30 days. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) Norman Paul issues a 
memorandum, "Assignment of Dependents of Military Personnel to Public 
Schools," to the Military Departments. The memo establishes DoD policy 
to secure non-racial school placement for all children of military 
personnel. 

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara issues a memorandum to the 
Military Departments on the participation of military personnel in civil 
rights demonstrations. The memo states that it is "highly inappropriate 
and unnecessary" for military personnel to participate in such 
demonstrations. Five specific criteria are then set out when military 
personnel "may not under any circumstances" participate in such 
demonstrations. 

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara responds to President Kennedy 
regarding the Gesell Committee report and indicates which 
recommendations are being implemented, those which will require more 
study, and those about which the Department has concerns. The Secretary 
states that military effectiveness is "unquestionably reduced" by racial 
discrimination. The Secretary's letter focuses on discrimination in off- 
base housing and indicates a willingness to use the "off limits" sanction, 



but only if approved by the Secretary of the Military Department in 
question. 

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara issues DoD Directive 5120.36, 
"Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces." The Directive establishes DoD 
policy to conduct all activities free from racial discrimination and to 
provide equal opportunity for all uniformed members and civilian 
employees. The Directive authorizes the establishment of a Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civil Rights. The Directive is generally 
viewed as a response to the initial report of the Gesell Committee and 
represents the Department's first equal opportunity policy. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civil Rights) issues a 
memorandum, "Elimination of Racial Designators on DD Forms." The 
memo orders the removal of racial designators from 16 of 25 forms used 
in conunon by the Services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 
The memo does not address racial designators on Service-specific forms. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) Norman Paul issues a 
memorandum, "Non-Discrimination in Civil Schooling of Military 
Personnel." The memo declares that no Department of Defense funds may 
be spent to pay tuition at segregated educational institutions. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civil Rights) Alfred Fitt issues a 
memorandum, "Segregated Schools and Military Departments." The 
memo reminded the Services that it was Department of Defense policy to 
require the placement of military dependents in integrated schools and that 
commanders were expected to take "appropriate efforts" on behalf of 
children to eliminate deviation from that policy. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is passed. Title VII prohibits discrimination 
based upon race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment. 
The Federal government is exempted from coverage. 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance issues a memorandum, 
"Federal Participation at Segregated Meetings." The memo prohibited the 
participation of DoD personnel in such matters and made base 
commanders responsible for enforcing the ban. 

The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) issues DoD Instruction 
5525.2, "Processing of Requests by Military Personnel for Action by the 
Attorney General under the Civil Rights Act of 1964." The Instruction 
prescribes policies and procedures for processing the requests of enlisted 
personnel for legal action under Title II (Public Accommodations), Title 
III (Public Facilities), and Title IV (Public Education) of the Act. The 



Instruction also encourages, but does not compel, the use of command 
assistance by Servicemen who wish to request suit by the Attorney 
General. 

20 Nov 64 Gesell Committee submits its final report to the Secretary of Defense. The 

report focuses on the status of black service members overseas, 
particularly in off base housing, and in the National Guard. The 
Committee wanted its recommendations on off base housing in its interim 
report applied overseas, including use of off-limits sanctions when 
necessary. The Committee also called the National Guard the only branch 
of the armed forces which had not been integrated. It called for a wide 
range of reforms and recommended that sanctions available under Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be used to enforce the recommended 
reforms. 

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara issues DoD Directive 5500.1 1, 
"Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs." The Directive 
implements Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits 
discrimination in grants; loans of federal funds; transfer, sale, or lease of 
federal property; or in any other form of federal financial assistance. The 
Directive established a procedure whereby federal funding could be 
terminated if discrimination was found. The largest of the DoD programs 
subject to these provisions is the National Guard. 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance sends a memorandum, "Equal 
Opportunity in the National Guard," to the Secretaries of the Army and Air 
Force. In the memo, he orders them to amend National Guard regulations 
in such a manner as to eliminate any trace of racial discrimination and to 
ensure that the polity of equal opportunity and treatment is clearly stated. 
This becomes the impetus for the first significant changes on racial 
policies within many of the States. 

President Johnson issues Executive Order 1 1246. The order prohibits 
discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin in 
government employment and in employment by govemment contractors 
and subcontractors. Sex discrimination is not prohibited. The heads of 
govemment departments and agencies are responsible for implementing 
"positive programs" of employment under the supervision of the Civil 
Service Commission. 

1 1 Jan 66 The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) issues DoD Instruction 

7720.17, "Off-Base Equal Opportunity Status Report." The Instruction 
requires the Military Departments to submit an annual report on: (1) off- 
base equal opportunity conditions and (2) Efforts taken by installation 
commanders to oppose off-base discriminatory practices. 



28 Dec 64 



15 Feb 65 



24 Sep 65 



6 



Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance issues a memorandum, "Equal 
Opportunity for Military Personnel in Rental of Off«Base Housing." The 
memorandum requires the Military Departments to undertake a nation- 
wide census of equal opportunity in the rental of off-base housing. After 
the results of the census are established, each base commander is required 
to mobilize local community support for opening up all housing in the 
vicinity of bases to all military personnel. 

Secretary of Defense memorandum to the Military Departments on 
"Unsatisfactory Housing for Negro Military Families Living Off-Post in 
the Fort George G. Meade Area." The memorandum acknowledges that 
less than 10% of Negro personnel assigned to Ft. Meade could find 
suitable housing. The memorandum then establishes a seven mile radius 
circle around Ft. Meade and requires that all rental housing units within 
that circle be rented on a nondiscriminatory basis or that no military 
personnel will be permitted to rent units within that area. 

The Secretary of Defense issues a memorandum on "Off-Base Housing 
Referral Services." The memorandum requires each Military Department 
to establish a housing referral office at each base. Such offices are to clear 
off-base housing units which seek to rent to military personnel and to refer 
all personnel seeking off-base housing only to those units which do not 
discriminate. 

The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) issues a memorandum on 
"Housing Referral Offices Interim Operating Procedures." The 
memorandum establishes criteria to be used by base housing offices in 
accepting and filling listings of off-base rental or lease housing units. 

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Kemer 
Commission) writes to President Johnson and recommends a substantial 
increase in the recruitment of Negroes for the Army and Air National 
Guard as well as an improvement and expansion of riot control training for 
Guard members. 

President Johnson issues Executive Order 1 1375. The order adds "sex" as 
a prohibited form of discrimination in Federal employment as well as in 
employment by government contractors and subcontractors. "Creed" is 
changed to "religion" in the prohibited bases of discrimination. 

The Civil Service Conrmiission creates the Federal Women's Program 
(FWP) by issuing Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Letter 713-8. The 
FWP is to be incorporated into each Agency's regular EEO program and 
written Plans of Action. FWP coordinators are to be designated. A wide 



variety of personnel actions are discussed as well as barriers to the 
employnient of women. Sexual hara:ssment is not mentioned. 

Riots and race related riots at the U.S. Army stockade at Long Binh, 
South Vietnam. Disturbances occurred between principally black 
prisoners and white guards over inadequate facilities, overcrowding, and 
poor food. Some observers claimed the event may have been inspired by 
the violence in the United States after the assassination of the Rev. Martin 
Luther King, Jr. 

Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford issues a memorandum to the Services 
ordering them to provide advice and legal assistance to Servicemen who 
encounter discrimination in housing. 

Racial incident at Camp Pendleton brig. 

The first EEOC decision prohibiting racial harassment in employment is 
issued. 

Second racial incident at Camp Pendleton brig. 

Incident of racial violence occurs at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. 
Fights between white and black Marines break out around a base service 
club at which a pre-deployment party is being held. Fifteen whites are 
hurt and 1 is killed. 

President Nixon issues Executive Order 1 1478. It supersedes Part One of 
E.0. 1 1246 and those portions of E.O. 1 1375 which apply to the Federal 
govemment. It reaffirms the government's policy of EEO, but requires 
additional steps. Agencies are required to have a continuing "affirmative" 
program covering every aspect of personnel policy and practice. The Civil 
Service Commission is left in charge and tasked with providing leadership 
and guidance to the agencies. 

Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird issues the first DoD Human Goals 
Charter. The document is perceived to be the philosophical cornerstone of 
the Department's equal opportunity and race relations programs. It 
establishes six goals, one of which is to make military and civilian service 
in the DoD a model of equal opportunity for all regardless of race, creed, 
or national origin and to hold those who do business with the Department 
to full compliance with the national policy of equal employment 
opportunity. 

House Committee on Armed Services issues a report on the racial violence 
at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina which had occurred in July 1969. The 



8 



report found that race problems in the military were a reflection of racial 
problems in the larger society; that there had been poor communication at 
the junior levels of command; and that there had been a deterioration of 
discipline at the Camp. The report then concluded that the incidence of 
violence did not result from a specific provocation, but had been generated 
"by a few militant blacks who fanned the flames of racism..." 

House Armed Services Committee issues report on the 1969 incidences of 
racial violence at the Camp Pendleton brig. 

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and other members of 
Congress meet with the President regarding reports of minority group 
member's problems with the military justice system. 

The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) 
releases a report, "Racial Discrimination: An Analysis of Serviceman 
Opinions." There are six major topics covered in the report. Among the 
findings of the report was that blacks were twice as likely as whites to 
have had an Article IS (nonjudicial) punishment or a courts martial 
(judicial) punishment. This lead to the perception by blacks that they were 
being discriminated against in promotions. 

Report of the Inter-Service Task Force on Education in Race Relations 
(Theus Report) is issued. The Task Force had been established by the 
Secretary of Defense to develop an education program in race relations to 
be used throughout the Armed Forces. The Task Force recommends: (1) 
Immediately implement a mandatory race relations education program for 
all active duty personnel at all military schools; (2) Establish a DoD Race 
Relations Education Institute to train instructors and disseminate material 
on race relations; (3) EstabUsh a DoD Race Relations Education Board to 
manage, supervise, and monitor the program; (4) Establish ad hoc panels 
of military and civilian experts to assist the program; (5) Develop 
correspondence courses in race relations; (6) Establish DoD and Service 
level information offices to develop and disseminate race relations 
education material; (7) Ensure that support is given at all levels of 
command; and (8) Require the Services to demonstrate and publicize 
equal opportunity in all areas. 

Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird issues DoD Directive 1 100.15, "Equal 
Opportunity Within the Department of Defense." This Directive cancels 
DoD directive 5120.36, which was issued in 1963, and adds religion, sex, 
and national origin to the list of prohibited discriminations. DoD 
Components are required to develop affirmative action programs, but no 
criteria for such programs are established. 



In response to requests received from black military personnel, as well as 
news accounts of increased racial tensions, the National Association for 
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sends a three man team to 
West Germany to evaluate the situation. The team stays three weeks and 
interviews personnel at fifteen installations. 

Mr. Roy Wilkins, Executive Director of the NAACP, sends a report, "The 
Search for Military Justice: Report of an Inquiry into the Problems of the 
Negro Serviceman in West Germany," to Secretary of Defense Melvin 
Laird. The report contains 36 specific reconunendations in six general 
areas: promotion discrimination, administration of justice, provision of 
legal advice or counsel, housing discrimination, and discrimination in 
recreational facilities. 

22-25 May 71 Racial disturbances at Travis Air Force Base, Califomia. One of the cited 

causes is the perception among Blacks that nonjudicial punishments 
(Article 15s) are imposed upon Blacks more frequently and more harshly 
than upon Whites for comparable offenses. 

24 Jun 71 Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard issues DoD Directive 

1322.1 1, "Department of Defense Education in Race Relations for Armed 
Forces Personnel." The Directive establishes the basic policy of 
preventing and eliminating racial tensions, unrest, and violence. To that 
end, a Defense Race Relations Education Board is established to advise 
the Secretary of Defense and to develop overall policy guidance for the 
DoD program of education in race relations for Armed Forces personnel 
on active duty. A Defense Race Relations Institute (DRRI) is also 
established to train race relations instructors for the Services, develop 
curricula for race relations education programs, conduct research, 
disseminate educational guidelines and materials for use in the Services, 
and perform evaluations of program effectiveness. 

15 Oct 71 The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) 

submits a report to the Chairman of the House Armed Services 
Committee. The report, "Lejeune, Travis and Beyond: A Survey of 
Progress in Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, July 1969 to Present," 
covers race relations education, poor conmiunications between the races 
and between officers and enlisted personnel, military justice, promotions 
and job assignments, minority officer recruitment and retention, housing 
and public acconunodations, law enforcement, and military involvement 
in local communities. 

Nov 71 Thirteen members of the Congressional Black Caucus visit ten U.S. 

military installations to talk with military members about racism in the 
military. 



10 



Jan 71 



22 Apr 71 



16-18 Nov 71 The Military Affairs Committee of the Congressional Black Caucus holds 

hearings on racism in the military. Topics of interest include military 
justice, housing and medical problems, and member observations from 
their base visits earlier in the month. 

21 Jan 72 Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird establishes the Task Force on the 

Administration of Military Justice in the Armed Forces. The Task Force 
has 14 members and is co-chaired by LTG C. E. Hutchin, Jr., USA and 
Mr. Nathaniel Jones, General Counsel of the NAACP. The group is asked 
to: (1) Determine the nature and extent of racial discrimination in the 
administration of military justice; (2) Assess the impact of factors 
contributing to disparate punishment; (3) Judge the impact of racially 
related practices on the administration of military justice and respect for 
law; and (4) Recommend ways to strengthen the military justice system 
and enhance the opportunity for equal justice for every American 
serviceman and woman. 

24 Mar 72 The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 is signed. It brings the 

Federal govemment under coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, but leaves enforcement up to the Civil Service Commission rather 
than the EEOC. 

1 5 May 72 The Congressional Black Caucus releases a report, "Racism in the 

Military: A New System for Rewards and Punishment." The report 
contains seventeen recommendations covering the following topics: 
military job assignments, promotions, command problems, equal 
opportunity offices, housing and medical problems and military justice 
(Article 15, pre-trial confmement, court martial, and discharge). 

12-13 Oct 72 Incidents of racial violence aboard the carrier (7.5. S. Kitty Hawk. 

Allegations of racial harassment by a ship^s investigator were followed by 
armed confrontation between Marines and black sailors. Ship's officers 
intervened and eventually abated the conflict. Forty-seven sailors had 
been injured and twenty-six were charged with violations of the UCMJ. 
After the incidents, the ship completed a 177 day tour off the coast of 
Vietnam in support of U.S. military operations. 

1-4 Nov 72 Incidents of racial violence aboard the carrier U.S.S. Constellation. After 

small group meetings, groups of black sailors presented grievances to 
ship's officers. False rumors were circulated alleging mass discharges of 
black sailors, A "sit in" resulted. Grievances were discussed. A "beach 
detachment" was put ashore. Discussion of grievances continued for 
several days. At the conclusion of discussions, the men refused to reboard 



11 



the ship and were charged with unauthorized absence, one hundred 
twenty-two men were involved. 

The DoD Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the 
Armed Forces issues a four volume report with seventy-two 
recommendations. 

The House Armed Services Committee issues a report by its Special 
Subcommittee on Disciplinary Problems in the U.S. Navy. The report 
focuses on racial incidents aboard the aircraft carriers U.S.S Kitty Hawk 
and U.S.S, Constellation. The subcommittee found there was an 
atmosphere of indiscipline and permissiveness in the Navy; that there were 
problems in communication between white supervisors and black sailors; 
and that there was a perception among blacks of discrimination. The 
subconunittee found the violence aboard the "Kitty Hawk" to have been 
spontaneous, while the violence aboard the "Constellation" to have been 
deliberately planned by a small group of black sailors. 

Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird issues a memorandum, "Report of the 
Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the Armed 
Forces," to the Secretaries of the Military Departments. In that 
memorandum, the Secretary approves the Army*s plan to provide formal 
recognition of 2,012 equal opportunity spaces. The Secretary also Directs 
that Judge Advocate organizations are to be revised to place defense 
counsels under the authority of the Judge Advocate General; that 
nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) procedwes be revised; and that 
procedures for discharging personnel under other than honorable 
conditions be revised to allow prospective dischargees to consult with a 
judge advocate at the outset of said procedure. 

The DoD Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the 
Armed Forces issues a volume with twelve follow-on studies to its 30 Nov 
72 report. 

Deputy Secretary of Defense William Clement revises and reissues DoD 
Directive 1322.11, "Department of Defense Education in Race Relations 
for Armed Forces Personnel." The Directive requires race relations 
education and training for National Guard and Reserve personnel as well 
as those on active duty, amends the mission of the Defense Race Relations 
Board to include the Guard and the Reserves, and deletes the requirement 
to have Guard or Reserve personnel on the faculty of the Defense Race 
Relations Institute. 

Working Women United, an activist group, conducts one of the first 
surveys on sexual harassment in employment. Seventy percent of those 



12 



responding indicate that they had experienced sexual harassment at least 
once in their career. / 

Redbook magazine places a survey on sexual harassment in its January 
issue for readers to complete and return. 

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld revises and reissues DoD Directive 
1 100.15, "The Department of Defense Equal Opportunity Program." For 
the first time it defines terms such as "equal opportunity," "military equal 
opportunity program," and "affirmative action plan." It prohibits age 
discrimination for the first time. It requires military affirmative action 
plans to have goals and timetables and requires that such plans be 
submitted to and approved by the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs) [ASD (M&RA)]. It also includes 
language for the first time which can be construed to require the 
Components to have a military discrimination complaint processing 
system. Finally, it required for the first time annual reports to the ASD 
(M&RA) on progress being made to achieve affirmative action plan goals. 

DoD Directive 1100.15 is revised to permit Service regulations to require 
differential treatment of personnel based on sex or age if required by 
statute. 

Redbook magazine publishes the results of its January survey of readers. 
Over 9,000 persons had respond. This survey is often credited with 
bringing the issue of sexual harassment to widespread public attention. 

First Federal District Court decision dealing with sexual harassment in the 
Federal government. 

President Carter issues Reorganization Plan No. 1 . Those portions of the 
plan dealing with employment functions are to become effective on 1 Jan 
79. Civil Service Commission responsibilities under Title VII and for 
discrimination complaints are transferred to the EEOC. 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Charles Duncan revises and reissues DoD 
Directive 1322.1 1, "Education and Training in Human/Race Relations for 
Military Personnel." The scope of the Directive is enlarged to cover 
human relations and equal opportunity education as well as race relations. 
The Defense Race Relations Institute mission is redefined to fit the new 
scope, an annual curriculum review requirement is established, and 
procedures for nominating and approving faculty and staff are revised. 

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 is signed to become effective on 1 
Oct 79. Title III abolishes the Civil Service Conunission and creates the 



13 



Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit System Protection 
Board (MSPB). The OPM is assigned responsibiUty for the FWP, 
Hispanic Employment Program (HEP), and the Federal Equal Opportunity 
Recruitment Program (FEORP). FEORP authority, however, is to be in 
coordination with the EEOC, as FEORPs are to be an integral part of 
Agency written Affirmative Employment Programs (AEPs). The MSPB is 
authorized to receive and process "mixed" case discrimination complaints 
in heu of the EEOC if the complainant so chooses. Title VII rights must 
be given up to do so, however. 

Catherine MacKinnon publishes her landmark book, Sexual Harassment of 
Working Women: A Case of Sexual Discrimination . It becomes the most 
influential book to date on the legal and policy debate on sexual 
harassment. She defines sexual harassment as "unwanted imposition of 
sexual requirements in the context of unequal power." 

The National Commission on Unemployment Compensation holds 
hearings. It takes testimony on problems faced by working women, 
including sexual harassment, and hears the results of a survey by the 
Michigan Employment Security Commission which included items on 
sexual harassment. 

The Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service, U.S. House of Representatives begins an investigation into sexual 
harassment in the Federal government. The investigation is initiated 
because of the results of an unofficial survey conducted at the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development which revealed that 166 women 
responded that they had been sexually harassed on the job. 

The name of the Defense Race Relations Institute is changed to the 
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. 

The Subcommittee on Investigations holds hearings on sexual harassment 
in the Federal govemment. The hearings focus on sexual intimidation by a 
male supervisor of a subordinate female employee and on the length of 
time it takes to process a discrimination complaint within the Federal 
system. A representative from the Women's Legal Defense Fund testified 
that at least 70% of working women had experienced sexual 
discrimination. After the hearings were over, the Subcommittee 
Chairman, who was also the Chairman of the full Post Office and Civil 
Service Committee, wrote to the OPM and asked them to issue a directive 
clearly defining sexual harassment and declaring it a prohibited personnel 
practice. The Chairman also asked the MSPB to initiate a survey of the 
extent of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. 



14 



The 0PM develops a 3-4 hour training module, "Workshop on Sexual 
Harassment," and incorporates it into several interagency training courses. 

OPM issues a memorandum to Heads of Departments and Independent 
Agencies, "Policy Statement and Definition on Sexual Harassment." It 
defines sexual harassment as "deliberate or repeated unsolicited verbal 
comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual nature which are 
unwelcome." 

The ASD(MRA&L) disseminates the OPM policy statement to the 
Military Departments and Defense Agencies. Recipients are asked to 
publicize the OPM policy by including it in new employee orientations 
and by advising current employees on how to obtain redress from sexual 
harassment. 

The Chairman of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee 
writes to Secretary of Defense Brown urging him to adopt a policy on 
sexual harassment. 

The Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee on the Armed 
Services, U.S. House of Representatives, holds hearings on women in the 
military and allegations of sexual harassment in the military services. 

Secretary of Defense Brown answers Chairman Hanley's letter of 7 Jan 80. 
He indicates that he has asked each Military Department to investigate the 
problem of sexual harassment and that after the investigations are over, he 
will issue guidance. 

The EEOC issues interim guidelines on sexual harassment to the Federal 
agencies. 

The EEOC publishes interim guidelines on sexual harassment in the 
Federal Register. It defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual 
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct 
of asexual nature." 

The House Subconunittee on Investigations issues a report on its 
investigation into sexual harassment in the federal govemment. The report 
focuses on the MSPB's preliminary report of its survey of Federal 
employees and on the responses of some Federal agencies to the 
Chairman's request that they issue policies prohibiting sexual harassment. 

The MSPB releases its report on its survey of Federal employees. Survey 
forms had been sent to 23,000 employees and 85% had been returned. 
Forty percent of the women responding and fifteen percent of the men 



15 



report that they had personally experienced sexual harassment during the 
previous 24 months. 

Chairman Hanley writes to the Federal Agencies. He asks them to 
respond to nine questions on how they are implementing the OPM 
directive of Dec 79 on sexual harassment and the EEOC interim guidelines 
of Apr 80. 

The EEOC issues Management Directive 704 (EEO-MD-704) which 
contains instructions to Federal agencies on how to prevent sexual 
harassment in the workplace. Agencies are also required to develop 
written sexual harassment supplements to be inserted into their FY 80 
transition Affirmative Action Plans. 

The House Subconunittee on Investigations holds more hearings on sexual 
harassment in the Federal government. The hearings focus on the 
preliminary report of the MSPB and on Federal agency responses to the 
Chairman's letter of 5 Aug. 

The EEOC publishes its final guideUnes on sexual harassment in the 
Federal Register, They are essentially the same as what was published 
earlier in April. These guidelines are still in effect and are unchanged 
since originally issued. 

A private sector consultant issues a draft report, "Sexual Harassment: 
Civilian and MiUtary Perspectives," to the DASD(EO). The draft report 
discusses sexual harassment as a sociological phenomenon, summarizes 
current efforts to solve the problem, reviews Military Department actions 
to prevent sexual harassment, and offers recommendations for further 
action by the DoD. 

The MSPB publicly releases its final report, "Sexual Harassment in the 
Federal Workplace - Is It A Problem?" The report indicates that 42% of 
all women and 15% of all men employed by the Federal government had 
experienced sexual harassment on the job sometime within the previous 24 
months. It concludes that sexual harassment is a legitimate problem and 
that agency managers had not done enough to resolve the problem. The 
report contains eight recommendations for additional action. 

The private consultant submits her final report, "Countering Sexual 
Harassment: Theory and Applications for the Department of Defense" to 
the DASD(EO). The report is essentially the same as the draft issued in 
December 1980. It reconunends that sexual harassment be defined as: 
"The manifestation of sexual discrimination which results in unwanted, 
unsolicited, inappropriate, coercive, or illegal verbal or physical 



16 



communications or behaviors which demean the dignity and status of 
miUtary personnel and/or undermine the integrity and accomplishment of 
the defense mission." 

Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger issues a memorandum, 
"Department of Defense Policy on Sexual Harassment." Though not 
actually defining sexual harassment, the memorandum encourages 
compliance with the 0PM and EEOC guidance previously issued. 

The ASD(MRA&L) issues a memorandum supplementing the Secretary's 
17 Jul issuance and establishing a definition of sexual harassment based 
upon that in the EEOC guidelines, but omitting the word "unwelcome." 

Secretary of Defense memorandum reiterating the 1981 policy issuance. 

The MSPB decides to update its 1980 survey and 1981 report on sexual 
harassment in the Federal govemment 

The U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB 
V. Vinson, et al This is the first Supreme Court decision to rule that 
sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII. The Court adopts the 
EEOC's 1980 guidelines as definitive and recognizes two categories of 
harassment: (1) harassment that involves the conditioning of employment 
benefits on sexual favors [e.g., quid pro quo] and (2) harassment that, 
while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive 
working environment. The majority decision recognizes that the most 
important element of any sexual harassment claim is that the sexual 
advances were "unwelcome." 

Secretary Weinberger signs a memorandum, "Sexual Harassment and 
Discrimination." The memo acknowledges that sexual harassment 
problems continue and that there is a need to raise the awareness of 
commanders. It also acknowledges that the chain of command has not 
adequately addressed the issues or responded appropriately to complaints. 
Everyone is encouraged to do more to eliminate sexual harassment. 

Deputy Secretary of defense William Taft issues DoD Directive 1350.2, 
"The Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program." This 
Directive is the first to be devoted solely to military equal opportunity 
programs instead of lumping them in with civilian and govemment 
contractor programs. The Directive establishes a Defense Equal 
Opportunity Council (DEOC) to coordinate and review military and 
civilian EO programs, monitor progress in achieving program elements, 
assist in developing policy guidance for equal opportunity and human 
relations training, and to advise the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force 



17 



Management and Personnel) [ASD (FM&P)] on equal opportunity 
matters. The Directive also establishes a DEOMI Board of Visitors to 
serve as an external source of expertise to the Institute and to ensure an 
external review of the Institute's objectives, policies, and operations. 
Additional terms are defined for the first time and ten specific categories 
are established for the Component annual affirmative action plan reports 
submitted to the ASD (FM&P). 

A report released by the Task Force on Women in the Military 
reconmiends that the DoD conduct a survey on sexual harassment. 

Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci authorizes a DoD-wide survey on 
sexual harassment in the active duty military. 

The ASD (FM&P) issues DoD Instruction 1350.3, "Affirmative Action 
Planning and Assessment Process." This Instruction elaborates upon the 
annual reporting requirement established in DoD Directive 1350.2 of April 
29, 1987. For each of the ten required reporting categories and subjects in 
the annual military equal opportunity assessment, the Instruction 
establishes a data format and requirements for a narrative assessment. 

The MSPB releases a follow-up report, "Sexual Harassment in the Federal 
Government: An Update." The report concludes that while more people 
are aware of what constitutes sexual harassment, the numbers of those 
who have experienced harassment had not changed appreciably from 
1981. Coworkers are still identified as the most frequent source of 
harassment and unwanted sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions is 
still identified as the most common type of harassment. Although most 
agencies have issued sexual harassment prevention policies and conducted 
training, little effect is noted. Sexual harassment is estimated to cost the 
government $133.5 million per year in replacing harassed employees, 
paying sick leave to employees experiencing harassment, and reduced 
productivity. 

Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci issues a policy memorandum, "DoD 
Definition of Sexual Harassment." The definition closely adheres to the 
EEOC guidelines issued in 1980 and incorporates the word "unwelcome" 
for the first time. 

Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci issues a policy memorandum, 
"Responsibility for Maintaining a Work Force Free of Sexual 
Harassment." The memo acknowledges the recent MSPB report and 
attempts to provide some of the additional guidance and emphasis 
recommended in the report. 



18 



25 Oct 88 



The EEOC issues a Notice to staff, "Policy Guidance on Current Issues of 
Sexual Harassment." The document summarizes the development of 
sexual harassment theory through EEOC decisions and Court cases. 



Nov 88 - DoD conducts a survey of sex roles in the active duty military. Items 

Jun 89 concerning sexual harassment are included. 

23 Dec 88 Deputy Secretary of Defense William Taft revises and reissues DoD 

Directive 1350.2, "The Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity 
Program." The revised Directive expands the responsibilities of the ASD 
(FM&P), adds a requirement that Component equal opportunity programs 
include an EO awards program for individuals and units, elaborates upon 
the definition of "ethnic group," and expands the defmition of "sexual 
harassment." 

19 Mar 90 The EEOC issues a new Notice to staff, "Policy Guidance on Current 

Issues of Sexual Harassment," which updates and supersedes the Oct 88 
issuance. 

1 1 Sep 90 The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) releases the report, "Sexual 

Harassment in the Military: 1988." Sixty-four percent of female 
respondents and 17% of males experienced some form of sexual 
harassment in the previous year. The female rate was higher than the 42% 
reported by their civilian counterparts in 1988, although the male rate was 
basically the same. Verbal harassment was the most common form 
experienced, but 15% of the military women experienced pressure for 
sexual favors or actual sexual assault. Only 1 1% of civilian women 
reported pressure for sexual favors or experienced assault. 

12 Jul 91 Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney issues a poUcy memorandum, 

"Department of Defense Strategies to Eradicate Sexual Harassment in 
the Military and Civilian Environment." This memo retains the 1988 
definition of sexual harassment, but it also outlines an eight point 
program intended to elinninate sexual harassment within DoD. 

5-7 Sep 91 The Tailhook Association holds its 35th annual symposium in Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

8 Sep 91 LT Paula Coughlin verbally complains to her boss that she was sexually 

assaulted during the Tailhook symposium. 

1 1 Oct 91 The Vice Chief of Naval Operations directs the Naval Investigative 

Service (NIS) to conduct a criminal investigation of the Tailhook 
convention. 



19 



The Secretary of the Navy directs that the Naval Inspector General 
conduct an inquiry into any noncriminal abuses or violations of law or 
regulation associated with the Tailhook convention. 

The Navy Personnel Research and Development Center releases a report, 
"Assessment of Sexual Harassment in the Navy: Results of the 1989 
Navy-wide Survey." The survey found that 42% of enlisted women and 
26% of women officers had been sexually harassed during the one year 
survey period while on duty, or on base or ship while off duty. Similarly, 
4% of enlisted men and 1% of male officers reported being sexually 
harassed. 

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute hosts a workshop 
on the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Attendees represented all four 
armed services. Recognizing a disparity injudicial/nonjudicial 
punishment rates for minorities, the attendees reviewed previous research 
on the subject, decided upon factors to be considered in future research, 
and developed a proposal for conducting the necessary research. 

The Navy releases NIS and Naval IG reports of investigation of the 
Tailhook convention. 

Secretary of the Navy asks the DoD Inspector General to review the entire 
Tailhook matter. 

The House Armed Services Committee releases a draft report, "Women in 
the Military: The Tailhook Affair and the Problem of Sexual 
Harassment." The report compares cultural changes in the military caused 
by racial integration and the war against drugs with the cultural changes 
necessary to cope with sexual harassment. Seven findings concerning 
sexual harassment are then presented. 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Conmiittee on 
Veterans' Affairs holds hearings on "Sexual Harassment in the VA 
Workplace and VA Medical Care for Women Veterans Including Victims 
of Sexual Abuse During Military Service." The ASD (FM&P) presents 
testimony regarding DoD's policy and programs concerning sexual 
harassment. 

The DoD IG releases the first of two reports on the 1991 Tailhook 
convention, "Tailhook 91 - Part 1, Review of the Navy Investigations." 
The report concludes that the scope of investigations should have been 
expanded beyond the assaults to encompass other violations of law and 



20 



regulation and that the inadequacies of the investigations were due to 
collective management and personal failures on the part of Navy leaders. 

The DoD IG releases the second of two reports on the 1991 Tailhook 
convention, "Tailhook 91 - Part 2, Events of the 35th Annual Tailhook 
Symposium." The report documents 90 victims of indecent assault and 
establishes that 50 officers made false statements to investigators. It 
indicates that 140 officers and 35 flag and general officers have been 
referred to the Acting Secretary of the Navy for consideration of 
appropriate action. The report concludes that there had been a serious 
breakdown of leadership at the Tailhook convention in addition to the 
misconduct by persons attending. 

The Navy Personnel Research and Development Center issues a report, 
"Sexual Harassment in the Active - Duty Navy: Findings from the 1991 
Navy- Wide Survey." The survey indicated that 44% of enlisted women 
and 33% of women officers had been sexually harassed during 1991. This 
was up from 42% of enlisted women and 26% of women officers reporting 
harassment in 1989. The survey also found that 8% of enlisted men and 
2% of male officers had experienced sexual harassment in 1991. This was 
up from 4% of enlisted men and 1% of male officers experiencing 
harassment in 1989. 

Department of Defense Inspector General releases a report, "Review of 
Military Department Investigations of Allegations of Discrimination by 
MiUtary Personnel." The report concludes that the majority of EO 
complaint investigations are sufficiendy thorough to confirm or refute the 
allegations; That there is a lack of feedback and follow-up after the 
completion of investigative and disciplinary actions; That there is 
inconsistent analysis of discrimination complaints and inaccurate reporting 
on complaints due to the lack of standard definitions; and that 
communication between commanders and equal opportunity advisors is 
inhibited by the low rank of advisors which is not commensurate with 
their responsibilities. 

The House Armed Services Committee holds hearings on "Sexual 
Harassment of Military Women and Improving the Military Complaint 
System." 

Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch expresses concern that the DoD 
has yet to develop and fully implement policies and procedures necessary 
to rid the Department of sexual harassment. He asks the Secretary of the 
Air Force and the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
to formulate a plan of action and calendar for developing and 
implementing such policies and regulations. 



21 



25 Apr 94 The Secretary of the Air Force and the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Personnel and Readiness) submit a sexual harassment policy plan to the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense. The plan has five main elements: (1) Work 
with Congress; (2) Develop a new DoD sexual harassment policy 
statement; (3) Establish a DEOC Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual 
Harassment; (4) Initiate a sexual harassment survey in the military; and (5) 
Implement senior leadership training. 

1 3 May 94 First meeting of the DEOC Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual 

Harassment. 



22 Aug 94 Secretary of Defense William Perry issues policy memorandum on, 

"Prohibition of Sexual Harassment in the Department of Defense (DoD)." 
The definition of "sexual harassment" is revised to adopt concepts from a 
1993 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The seven sexual harassment 
program guidelines established in 1991 by Secretary Cheney are revised 
and expanded to eleven program guidelines. 



22 



Annotated Bibliography of Reference Materials on Sexual 
Harassment in the Files of the ODASD(£0) 

\ 



Tab D 



Annotated Bibliography of 
Reference Materials on 
Sexual Harassment 
in the Files of the ODASD (EO) 

Articles 

Beck, Lois M. "Sexual Harassment in the Army: Roots Examined." Minerva Vol. 9, No. 1, 
Spring 1991, pgs 29-40. 

Reprint of essay done in 1979 or 1980, Definition of sexual 
harassment includes sexist remarks, physical assault, and rape. 
Based upon the author's experiences as an Army officer, the essay 
examines the nature and roots of sexual harassment and how it 
shows itself in real life situations. The author presents four 
conclusions, two of which deal with increased education. 



Bennett - Alexander, Dawn D. "Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment: A Cleared View." 
Labor Law Journal Vol. 42, No. 3, March 1991, pgs. 131-143. 

The author examines the first U.S. Supreme Court decision 
involving sexual harassment and the EEOC guidelines which the 
Court endorsed. The article concludes that the Court's decision 
left unanswered questions regarding what constitutes hostile 
environment sexual harassment. Eleven subsequent lower court 
opinions are summarized, however, which the author believes fill 
in most of the gaps left by the Supreme Court. 



Bigelow, Donovan R. "Equal but Separate: Can the Army's Affirmative Action Program 
Withstand Judicial Scrutiny After Crosoni:' Military Law Review Vol. 131 Winter 1991 (DA 
PAM 27-100-131), pgs. 147-167. 

The article examines the Army's affirmative action program for 
promotions in light of the Supreme Court's decision in City of 
Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. It briefly reviews the flow of case 
law prior to and since the seminal case of Regents of the 



University of California v, Bakke, examines the analytical 
structure endorsed by the Court in Croson, and analyzes the 
Army's promotion system in terms of its consistency with the 
Croson standards. It concludes that the Army's success in 
overcoming both institutional and personal discrimination has 
made affirmative action programs superfluous. It recommends 
that the Army dismantle those portions of its affirmative action 
programs which cannot be justified on the basis of presently 
existing, individual discrimination. 



Claypoole, Theodore F. "Inadequacies in Civil Rights Law: The Need for Sexual Harassment 
Legislation." Ohio State Law Journal Vol. 48, No. 4, 1987, pgs. 1151 - 1170. 

The article argues that instead of clarifying the development of 
sexual harassment law, the Supreme Court decision in Meritor 
Savings Bank v. Vinson raised as many questions as it answered 
and left the lower courts to wade through a swamp of ambiguities. 
The author suggests, therefore, that the courts need legislative 
guidance in order to move confidently and uniformly in this area. 
The article concludes that the Congress should explicitly prohibit 
and regulate sexual harassment through the passage of new 
legislation. 



Connell, Dana S. "Effective Sexual Harassment Policies: Unexpected Lessons from 
Jacksonville Shipyards.'' Employee Relations Law Journal Vol. 17, No. 2, Autumn 1991, pgs. 
191 -206. 

The article suggests that although many employers recognize the 
need for an effective sexual harassment policy, they have received 
only limited guidance from the EEOC and the courts on how to 
draft one. The article then examines a decision by the Federal 
District Court for the Northern District of Florida in which the 
court imposed a comprehensive sexual harassment policy on an 
employer which consisted of a statement of policy; a statement of 
prohibited conduct; a schedule of penalties for misconduct; 
procedures for making, investigating, and resolving sexual 
harassment and retaliation complaints; and procedures and rules 
for education and training. The author suggests that employers 
should adopt similar comprehensive policies to better protect 
themselves from liability for sexual harassment. 



2 



DeParle, Jason. "About Men." The Washington Monthly , November 1988, pgs. 38 - 48. 



Although the article focuses on college fraternities, the author 
discusses social values regarding hazing conformity, and view^s 
regarding women which may have applicability for college age 
military personnel 



Dodier, Grace M. ''Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson: Sexual Harassment at Work." Harvard 
Women's Law Joumal Vol. 10, Spring 1987, pgs. 203 - 224. 

The article posits that sexual harassment in the American 
workplace is a persistent problem for working women. The author 
reviews the background to the Supreme Court decision in Meritor; 
summarizes the Court's opinion; and analyzes its implications 
regarding the admissibility of evidence and standards of liability. 
The article concludes that the decision's shortcomings in 
endorsing the admissibility of evidence of sexual speech and 
clothing and its failure to articulate a clear standard of employer 
liability undermine its potential to remedy the problem of sexual 
harassment. 



Greenlaw, Paul S. and John P. Kohl. "Proving Title VII Sexual Harassment: The Court's View." 
Labor Law Joumal Vol. 43, No. 3, March 1992, pgs. 164 - 171. 

The article examines five steps necessary to prove a sexual 
harassment case. Four of the steps are different for hostile 
environment cases vs, quid pro quo cases. The author questions if 
"hostile environment" can ever be defined with precision and 
recommends that attention be given to establishing parameters for 
the concept. 



Griffin, Mary C. "Making the Army Safe for Diversity: A Title VII Remedy for Discrimination 
in the Military." The Yale Law Joumal Vol. 96, No. 8, July 1987, pgs. 2082 - 2109. 

The article reviews discrimination in the military and suggests that 
it is a serious problem today. The article then reviews statutory 
constructions which have limited the application of Title VII to 
military personnel. Specifically, military personnel cannot sue the 
military under the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment 



3 



because of "special factors" which dictate it would be 
inappropriate to provide enlisted personnel with an avenue to seek 
remedies against their superior officers. Second, although Title 
VII protects "employees" of military departments, military 
personnel are not considered to be employees. The article 
concludes that Title VII should apply to the military. 



Horton, Amy. "Comments: Of Supervision, Centerfolds, and Censorship: Sexual Harassment, 
the First Amendment, and the Contours of Title VII." University of Miami Law Review , Vol. 
46, No. 2, November 1991, pgs. 403 - 453. 

The article summarizes the background to the Robinson v. 
Jacksonville Shipyards case. It analyzes this case by discussing 
sexual harassment and the First Amendment; the First Amendment 
in the workplace; the First Amendment defense to sexual 
harassment; and pinups as sexual harassment. It concludes that 
Robinson, if upheld, has potential for stopping short First 
Amendment defenses by providing an analysis of hostile 
environment discrimination. 



Josefowitz, Natasha and Herman Gadon. "Hazing: Uncovering One of the Best-Kept Secrets of 
the Workplace." Business Horizons May- June 1989, pgs. 22 - 26. 

The article attempts to disabuse the notion that hazing is a campus 
phenomenon and that it has a counterpart in the workplace. The 
authors discuss the purposes of hazing in the workplace, who does 
it, and when does it turn into harassment. They conclude that it is 
a long term phenomenon, which is not always benign and that it 
can, therefore^ produce negative business affects if not controlled. 



Larson, David Allen. "What Can You Say, Where Can You Say It, and to Whom? A Guide to 
Understanding and Preventing Unlawful Sexual Harassment." Creighton Law Review , Vol. 25, 
No. 3, April 1992, pgs. 827 - 854. 

The author posits that employers and employees are confused at to 
what conduct is considered unlawful sexual harassment. The 
article summarizes the two basic theories of sexual harassment; 
quid pro quo and hostile environment. The article then examines 
in detail the post-Meritor court decisions and the factors that 



4 



combine to create a hostile environment. Topics examined 
include, prohibited conduct, meaning of "unwelcome, " meaning of 
"severe or pervasive/' abusive environment^ employer liability, 
and remedies. 



Martucci, William C. and Robert B. Terry. "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Legal 
Overview." The Labor Lawven Vol. 3, No. 1, Winter 1987, pgs. 125 - 135. 

The article reviews the 1980 EEOC guidelines on sexual 
harassment, the elements of proof necessary in sexual harassment 
cases, the limits of relevant evidence, the available remedies, and 
preventive measures in the emerging area of sexual harassment 
law. The author concludes that employers should not tolerate 
sexual harassment and that the desire to respond promptly to such 
complaints serves both the interest of employers and employees. 



Morgenson, Gretchen. "Watch that Leer, Stifle that Joke." Forbes , May 15, 1989, pgs. 69 -72. 

Article examines whether or not incidences of hazing, joking, and 
sexually suggestive talk between men and women in the workplace 
are increasing as alleged in the media. It concludes that the 
alleged increases in sexual harassment were the product of 
propaganda from self-interested parties. 



Pollack, Wendy. "Sexual Harassment: Women's Experience vs. Legal Definitions." Harvard 
Women's Law Journal . Vol. 13, Spring 1990, pgs. 35 - 85. 

The article traces the development of sexual harassment as a legal 
cause of action, citing two cases which illustrate how far courts 
will go to enforce gender hierarchy and legitimate the means of 
control which perpetuate women's subordinate position in the 
workplace hierarchy. Other cases are examined which highlight 
the elements necessary to prevail in a sexual harassment case. It 
concludes that only the most egregious forms of sexual harassment 
are outlawed because courts continue to sanction a gender 
hierarchy which shapes all interactions between men and women. 



Riger, Stephanie. "Gender Dilemmas in Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures." American 
Psychologist . Vol. 46, No. 5, May 1991, pgs. 497 - 505. 



The article proposes that the reasons for a lack of use of sexual 
harassment grievance procedures, lie not in the victims, but in the 
procedures themselves. Women perceive sexual harassment 
differently than men do and their orientation to dispute resolution 
processes is likely to differ as well The way that policies define 
harassment and the nature of dispute resolution procedures may 
better fit male than female perspectives. Such gender bias is likely 
to discourage women from reporting complaints. 



Selden, Janet. "Employer Liability for 'Hostile Environment' Sexual Harassment, Meritor 
Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson.'' Howard Law Journal . Vol. 31, No. 1, 1988, pgs. 51 - 65. 

The author posits that women have ceased to be workers and have 
become sexual victims, while employers, through their supervisory 
personnel, have become the perpetrators in a wave of emotional 
office crime. The article traces the history of employer liability for 
'^hostile environment" sexual harassment and relates that history 
to the Supreme Court's decision in Meritor. The article concludes 
that the Court's decision in Meritor leaves open the circumstances 
in which an employer is responsible under Title Vllfor workplace 
sexual harassment. 



Simon, Howard A. ''Ellison v. Brady: A 'Reasonable Woman' Standard for Sexual Harassment." 
Employee Relations Law Journal . Vol. 17, No. 1, Summer 1991, pgs. 71 - 80. 

In Ellison, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected 
the traditional "reasonable person" standard for determining when 
a workplace is sufficiently hostile to constitute sexual harassment. 
The Court also suggested that employers will have to take 
substantial remedial measures - such as permanently separating 
the alleged harasser from the victim or even terminating the 
alleged harasser - in order to avoid liability in a hostile 
environment case. The article concludes that use of a "reasonable 
woman" standard will render some previously commonplace 
conduct actionable. In addition, in order to avoid liability, 
employers will have to learn greater sensitivity to the concerns and 
needs of women employees and will need to take greater 



6 



responsibility to educate their workforces about the unique 
problem of pervasive sexual harassment in the workplace. 



1 



Vinciguerra, Marlisa, "The Aftermath of Meritor: A Search for Standards in the Law of Sexual 
Harassment." The Yale Law Journal . Vol. 98, No. 8, June 1989, pgs. 1717 - 1738. 

The article argues that hostile environment sexual harassment 
claims have perplexed the courts and precipitated a doctrinal 
failure in sexual harassment law. The problem is seen as courts 
consistently defining harassment involving certain forms of 
economic detriment as hostile environment, which then limits quid 
pro quo cases to clear cut demands for sexual favors by 
supervisors. This practice reduces the availability of financial 
relief to the complainant because only quid pro quo violations 
carry back-pay awards. 



Wilds, Nancy G. "Sexual Harassment in the Military." Minerva, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter 1990, 
pgs. 1 - 16. 

The article argues that there is a lack of understanding in the 
Services as to what actually constitutes sexual harassment; that no 
one actually knows how widespread the problem is in the Services; 
that commanders should recognize that their own attitudes are the 
most important single factor in their organization's 
discrimination/harassment profile; that women fear their 
complaints will not be believed; and that women need to learn how 
to handle most forms of harassment on their own. 



Winterbauer, Steven H. "Sexual Harassment - The Reasonable Woman Standard." The Labor 
Lawyer, Vol. 7, No. 4, Fall 1991, pgs. 811 - 821. 

The article examines Federal court decisions in Ellison v. Brady 
and Robinson v, Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc, It concludes that use 
of the ''reasonable woman" standard broadens the scope of Title 
VII arui eliminates male bias from any analysis. Employers will 
now be challenged to examine workplace behavior from a wider 
perspective and to take more aggressive steps to keep employees' 
sexual coruluct in check. 



Documents/Regulations 



Commandant of the Marine Corps. "Department of the Navy (DoN) Toll-free Sexual 
Harassment Advice and Counseling Telephone Line," Message No. 1724, 221530ZFeb 93. 

Provides information about the line and specifies CON US and 
overseas numbers. Message stresses that the line is a source of 
advice and support and is not an investigative or reporting 
mechanism. 



Commandant of the Marine Corps. "Equal Opportunity (EO) Advisors," Marine Corps Order 
5354.3, September 8, 1993. 

Order establishes standard operating procedures for EO advisors 
as well as the criteria for screening and selecting personnel to be 
EO advisors. Order requires that an EO advisor be assigned to 
major Marine Corps installations for a tour of 3 years. All 
advisors are to be trained at the DEOML Twenty-one duty 
stations where advisors are to be stationed are designated. 



Commandant of the Marine Corps. "Marine Corps Bulletin 1900. Sexual Harassment: 
Administrative Separation Procedures," (ALMAR 85/92). Message 021959Z Apr 92. 

Establishes policy that officers and enlisted personnel shall be 
processed for administrative separation following the first 
substantiated incidence of sexual harassment involving threats or 
attempts to influence another's career or job for sexual favors, 
rewards in exchange for sexual favors, or physical contact of a 
sexual nature which, if charged as a violation of the UCMJ, could 
result in a punitive discharge. 



Commandant of the Marine Corps. "Military Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (MEOCS)," 
(ALMAR 37/93). Message 291500Z Jan 93. 

Message encourages commanders with more than 50 Marines in 
their units who have not conducted a MEOCS in FY 92/93 to 
request a survey from the DEOMI. 



8 



Department of Defense. "The Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program," 
DoD Directive 1350.2, dated December 23, 1988. 

Establishes basic Department-wide guidelines for military equal 
opportunity programs. Responsibilities are outlined and terms 
defined, including sexual harassment. Reporting requirements are 
estrablished and functions of the DEOC and DEOMIare outlined. 



Department of Defense. "Affirmative Action Planning and Assessment Process," DoD 
Instruction 1350.3, dated February 29, 1988. 

Establishes criteria for a Department-wide monitoring and 
reporting system for military equal opportunity (MEO) programs. 
Reporting categories and subjects for annual MEO assessments 
are specified. Sexual harassment is an item of interest in the 
section regarding complaints. A report format is required. 



Department of Defense. Secretary of Defense. "Department of Defense Strategies to Eradicate 
Sexual Harassment in the Military and Civilian Environment." Memorandum dated July 12, 
1991. 

Requires seven point action plan to eradicate sexual harassment 
plus annual reports from the DoD Components updating their 
progress in implementing the policy and assessing the effectiveness 
of their programs. 



Department of Defense. Secretary of Defense. "Equal Opportunity." Memorandum dated 
March 3, 1994. 

Establishes and reemphasizes basic equal opportunity policy and 
highlights five key initiatives. No specific mention of sexual 
harassment. 



9 



Department of the Air Force. Headquarters USAF. Air Force Military Personnel Center. "Staff 
Assistance Visit Guide," (Air Force Pamphlet 30-41). May 22, 1986. 

Pamphlet contains strategies and procedural guidance for 
conducting social actions unit staff assistance visits. 



Department of the Air Force. Secretary of the Air Force. "Command Responsibility for Equal 
Opportunity." Memorandum dated February 9, 1994. 

General policy statement co -signed by the Air Force Chief of Staff, 
Memorandum does not highlight sexual harassment. 



Department of the Army. Headquarters. "Army Command Policy," Army Regulation 600-20, 
dated March 30, 1988, effective April 29, 1988. 

Chapter 6, establishes basic policy on the "Equal Opportunity 
Program in the Army," It assigns responsibilities, establishes 
equal opportunity policy y defines sexual harassment, outlines chain 
of command responsibilities, specifies equal opportunity staffing 
requirements, identifies those on and off post activities covered by 
the regulation, specifies procedures for filing complaints, 
establishes training requirements, provides for narrative and 
statistical reports, discusses training at the DEOMI, and provides 
a calendar of equal opportunity special/ethnic observances. 



Department of the Army. Headquarters. "Army Command Policy," Army Regulation 600-20, 
Interim Change No. 101, dated September 13, 1989. 

Changes policy in paragraph 6-4. Sexual Harassment. 



Department of the Army. Headquarters. "Army Comnniand Policy," Army Regulation 600-20, 
Interim Change No. 102, dated April 1, 1992. 

Changes policy in paragraph 6-4, Sexual Harassment; paragraph 
6-6. Staffing; paragraph 6-8. Procedures for Processing 
Complaints; and other matters. 



10 



Department of the Army. Headquarters. "Army Command Policy," Army Regulation 600-20, 
Interim Change No. 104, dated September 17, 1993. 

Replaces all of Chapter 6, "Equal Opportunity Program in the 
Army." Major changes include mandating training in EO 
throughout all phases of professional military education and twice 
annually in units; restructures the discrimination complaint system 
and introduces a standardized EO complaint form; and adds 
structure to the quarterly and annual unit EO complaint reports. 



Department of the Army. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. "Department of the 
Army Sexual Harassment Action Plan." March 5, 1993. 

Plan stems from Chief of Staff of the Army testimony before the 
HASC in 1992, Secretary of the Army Human Resource Consultant 
trip reports, and feed back from commanders and equal 
opportunity advisors. Plan identifies six areas of concern and 
establishes goals and actions to resolve all concerns. Areas 
identified are: acts of sexual harassment; equal opportunity 
training; equal opportunity complaint system; institutional 
discrimination; leadership; and definition of sexual harassment • 
Most of the action steps in the plan were to be accomplished 
between February 1993 and February 1994. Five action steps, 
however, were identified as "ongoing" and three action steps were 
identified as "to be determined (TBD). " 



Department of the Army. Secretary of the Army. "Army Policy on Equal Opportunity" 
Memorandum dated January 25, 1994. 

General policy statement on equal opportunity. Memorandum 
establishes "freedom from sexual harassment" as a staruiard for 
the Army. 



Department of the Army. U.S. Army Research Institute. Army Personnel Survey Office. 
"Sexual Harassment: Active Component 1993 Survey Results." November 1993. 

Briefing package contains eight slides, summary of the survey 
methodology, and a list of 48 findings from the survey. Key 
findings indicate that the rates of harassment continue to decline; 



11 



about 60% of all women experiencing harassment handled the 
incident themselves and did not file a complaint; men are more 
confident than women that the system is committed to creating a 
workplace free from harassment; andnearly one-quarter of all 
personnel did not receive any sexual harassment training in the 
previous twelve months. 



Department of the Navy. Bureau of Naval Personnel. "Resolving Conflict... Folio wing the Light 
of Personal Behavior," (NAVPERS 15620). 1993. 



Describes and explains the Navy's Informal Resolution System 
(IRS) for resolving discrimination and sexual harassment issues. 



Department of the Navy. Chief of Naval Operations. "Commander's Handbook for Prevention 
of Sexual Harassment," March 28, 1994. 

The Handbook is intended to be a single source of information for 
commanders on the issue of sexual harassment. It summarizes all 
applicable Navy policies, discusses integration of sexual 
harassment prevention into a comprehensive equal opportunity 
program, provides a roadmap on how to handle sexual harasment 
complaints, discusses avenues for complainant redress/support 
services, describes the Navy's informal resolution system, and 
outlines options for correcting civilian and military offenders. 



Department of the Navy. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. "Navy Equal Opportunity," 
(OPNAVINST 5354.1C), April 13, 1989. 

Instruction disseminates U.S. Navy Equal Opportunity Manual 
Manual contains seven sections: EO responsibilities of 
commanders; EO responsibilities specific to shore commands; 
command managed EO; prevention of sexual harassment; Navy 
grievance procedures; incident handling and reporting; and Navy 
equal opportunity training. 



12 



Department of the Navy. Commandant of the Marine Corps. "Discrimination and Sexual 
Harassment Reporting Procedures," (Marine Corps Bulletin 5354.1). Distributed as ALMAR 
058/94, dated February 25, 1994. 

Requires commanders to track and report on all complaints of 
discrimination/sexual harassment. Establishes format for 
reporting data on each complaint. 



Department of the Navy. Commandant of the Marine Corps. "Sexual Harassment." Marine 
Corps Order 5300. lOA, July 17, 1989. 

Establishes general policy regarding sexual harassment and 
disseminates DoD definition of sexual harassment Requires a 
minimum of annual training for all personnel and emphasizes 
chain of command and request mast as the primary means of filing 
complaints. 



Department of the Navy. Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. Equal Opportunity Branch (MPE). 
"Processing Equal Opportunity and Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints: A 
Commander's Handbook." no date. 

Handbook discusses the military and civilian complaint systems; 
outlines the commanding officer's responsibilities concerning 
complaints; provides guidance to investigating oncers on how to 
conduct an investigation; and provides guidance for correcting 
civilian and military offenders. No special mention of sexual 
harassment except to include a copy of the Navy's policy 
(SECNAVrVST 5300.26B) and outlining the various options under 
the UCMJ for charging discrimination or sexual harassment. 



Department of the Navy. Secretary of the Navy. "Department of the Navy (DON) Policy on 
Sexual Harassment," SECNAVINST 5300.26B, January 6, 1993. 

Establishes Department-wide policy on the identification, 
prevention, and elimination of sexual harassment. Provides a 
Navy definition of sexual harassment; identifies a range of 
behaviors which constitute sexual harassment; and establishes 
command responsibility and accountability. 



13 



Department of the Navy. Secretary of the Navy, "Optimal Integration of Women in the 
Department of the Navy." All Navy Message dated October 10, 1993. 

General policy statement on the full utilization of women in the 
Navy which reaffirms the Navy commitment to eliminate sexual 
harassment. 



Department of Transportation. United States Coast Guard. Office of the Commandant. 
"Available Administrtative and Criminal Sanctions for Cases of Sexual Harassment," 
(Commandant Notice 5800) [ALCOAST Message 077/92], November 24, 1992. 

List of Articles from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 
which are applicable to various forms of sexual harassment. 
Commanders are encouraged to take appropriate action against 
offenders once they have sufficient information to reasonably 
believe sexual harassment has occurred. They do not have to wait 
for the completion of the formal investigation before acting. 



Department of Transportation. United States Coast Guard. Office of the Commandant. "CH-7 
to COMDTINST M5350.1 IB, MUitary Civil Rights Manual," (Commandant Notice 5350), April 
21, 1994. 

Change issues a new Chapter 5, "Procedures for Processing 
Complaints of Discrimination. " Establishes the goal of the system 
as restoring the complainant to a "make whole" condition. 
Establishes a 60 day period for counseling and informal complaint 
resolution and a 120 day period from the time of filing a formal 
complaint to investigate the complaint and issue a final decision. 
There are interim timelines for each process. A complaint 
summary report is specified; format for written feedback to the 
complainant is specified; and a form for filing a formal complaint 
of discrimination is authorized. 



Department of Transportation. United States Coast Guard. Office of the Commandant. "The 
Commandant's Diversity Policy Statement" (Commandant Note 5000, ALCOAST Message 
053/94), Junel, 1994. 

Defines "diversity as the uniqueness of all individualsand 
encompasses different personal attributes, values and 



14 



organizational roles. Policy emphasizes recognizing, 
understandings and valuating personal differences and fostering 
and organizational climate which permits people to exercise their 
full potential 



Department of Transportation. United States Coast Guard. Office of the Commandant. "The 
Commandant's Human Relations and Sexual Harassment Policy Statements" (Conmiandant 
Instruction 5350.21, October 9, 1990. 

Human Relations Policy Statement prohibits discrimination based 
upon race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, or mental 
or physical handicap in any thought or action affecting personnel 
Sexual Harassment Policy Statement establishes comprehensive 
program of zero tolerance. 



Department of Transportation. U.S. Coast Guard. Office of the Commandant. "Discrimination 
Complaints in the Civilian Work Force," (Commandant Notice 12713), August 18, 1993. 

Published summaries of six discrimination complaint cases 
intended to raise employee awareness and highlight the kinds of 
situations which lead to allegations of discrimination. 



Department of Transportation. U.S. Coast Guard. Office of the Commandant. "1991/1992 
Military Affirmative Action Plan (MAAP) Accomplishment and Assessment Report," 
(Commandant Notice 5350), May 20, 1994. 

Review of 1991/1992 MAAP goals and a summary of actions taken 
which were intended to achieve each goal Topics covered include 
valuing diversity, training and complaints, community outreach, 
recruiting ethnic minority officers, women, recruiting ethnic 
minority members and retention. Coast Guard Academy, and items 
requiring continuing attention 



Department of Transportation. United States Coast Guard. Office of the Commandant. "U.S. 
Coast Guard Sexual Harassment Prevention System," (Conunandant Instruction 5350.30), 
March 21, 1994. 



15 



While not supersceding existing policy issuances, this Instruction 
consolidates and expands upon existing policy based upon 
improvements recommended by a Sexual Harassment Prevention 
Study Group. Terms are defined; command accountability and 
responsibility are stressed; a spectrum of sexual harassment 
behaviors and consequences is established; and guidance for 
commanders and supervisors is given regarding personal 
leadership, climate assessment, communications/marketing, and 
accountability. 



Departments of the Army and Air Force. Headquarters. "Discrimination Complaint Processing 
System for National Guard Military Personnel," National Guard Regulation 600-22 and Air 
National Guard Regulation 30-3, dated July 15, 1992, effective October 1, 1992. 

Establishes procedures for processing discrimination complaints, 
including sexual harassment; provides for investigation and 
resolution of complaints; and provides guidance on the 
establishment and contents of official discrimination complaint 
case files. 



Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Final Amendment to Guidelines on 
Discrimination Because of Sex (29 CFR 1604). Federal Register , Vol. 45, No. 219, November 
10, 1980, pgs. 74676 - 74677. 

Adds Section 1604.11, "Sexual Harassment" to the general 
guidelines on discrimination because of sex (29 CFR 1604). 



Hearings 

House of Representatives. Committee on Armed Services. "Sexual Harassment of Military 
Women and Improving the Military Complaint System." Transcript of testimony delivered on 
March 9, 1994. 

Transcript includes opening statements by the Committee 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member; testimony by a panel of 
four women, one ojficer and three enlisted persons, all of whom 
claimed to be victims of sexual harassment while on active duty in 
the military, and their responses to questions by Committee 



16 



members; testimony by a panel of four women experts^ each of 
whom provided a personal or organizational perspective on the 
issue, and their responses to questions by Committee members; 
and testimony by a panel of four representatives from the DoD, 
each of whom outlined the policy and practice of their 
organization regarding sexual harassment, and their response to 
questions by Committee members. 



House of Representatives. Committee on Armed Services. Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 
"Women in the Military." Hearings held November 13, 14, 15, 16, 1979 and February 11, 1980 
(96th Congress 1st and 2nd Session) HASC No. 96-72. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1981. 

The hearings dealt with a number of issues concerning integration 
of women into the military. On February 11, 1980, the 
Subcommittee heard testimony from three civilian women who had 
been on active duty in the Army and one man and one woman 
currently on active duty in the Army. All five persons had served 
or were serving at Fort Meade, Maryland and all had observed or 
experienced sexual harassment The Post Commander of Fort 
Meade testified about a series of newspaper articles which alleged 
widespread sexual harassment at the Fort. Four women 
flag/general officers then testified regarding their views toward or 
experiences with sexual harassment Twelve enlisted women then 
responded to questions concerning their experiences with sexual 
harassment 



House of Representatives. Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Subcommittee on 
Investigations. "Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government." Hearings held October 23, 
November 1, 13, 1979 (96th Congress 1st Session) Serial No. 96-57. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Government Printing Office, 1980. 

First Congressional hearings on the subject Citing an unofficial 
survey at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 
a survey of Federal employees by the group New Responses, Inc., 
the subcommittee examined the issue of sexual harassment in the 
Federal government; a phenomenon it considered to be pandemic. 
The subcommittee concluded that there was no government-wide 
definition of sexual harassment; that there was no training for 
supervisors or employees to resolve the problem; that sexual 
harassment was widespread; and that the incidence of unreported 



17 



cases of sexual harassment was high. As a result of these 
hearings, the 0PM was asked to issue a directive defining sexual 
harassment and making it a prohibited personnel practice and the 
MSPB was asked to initiate a survey concerning sexual 
harassment in the Federal workplace. 



House of Representatives. Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Subcommittee on 
Investigations. "Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government." (96th Congress 2nd Session) 
Committee Print No. 96-11, April 30, 1980. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govemment Printing 
Office, 1980. 

Summary of Subcommittee activities since it initiated investigation 
into sexual harassment in the Federal govemment in July 1979, 
The Subcommittee concluded that sexual harassment was 
pervasive and would be a major workplace issue in the 1980s. It 
presented 21 recommendations to encourage both the public and 
private sectors to fully address the problem. 



House of Representatives. Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Subcommittee on 
Investigations. "Sexual Harassment in the Federal Govemment (Part II)" Hearing held on 
September 25, 1980 (96th Congress, 2nd Session) Serial No. 96-112. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Govemment Printing Office, 1980. 

Hearing focuses on the findings and conclusions in a preliminary 
report from the MSPB on its survey of Federal employees 
concerning sexual harassment^ which was done at the request of 
the Subcommittee. Status reports on actions taken were also given 
by representatives from the OPM and the EEOC. The 
Subcommittee then reprinted Federal Department/Agency 
responses to a letter from the Subcommittee Chairman regarding 
their compliance with recent directives from the OPM and the 
EEOC. 



House of Representatives. Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations. "Sexual Harassment in the VA Workplace and VA Health Care for Women 
Veterans." Transcript of testimony delivered on September 17, 1992. 

Transcript includes opening statements by the Subcommittee 
Chairman and Committee members; statement by the Hon. 



18 



Patricia Schroeder; testimony by a panel of six women, all 
employees of VA medical centers^ and their responses to 
subcommittee member questions; testimony by a panel of four 
women, three of whom were veterans with medical problems and 
the fourth a VA representative, and their responses to 
subcommittee member questions; and testimony by a panel of 
Federal Agency representatives from the Department of Veterans* 
Affairs, the Department of Defense [ASD (FM&P)], and the VA 
Office of Inspector General, and their responses to subcommittee 
member questions. 



International Materials 

Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-36, "Sexual Misconduct," no date. 

Under this order, ''sexual misconduct'' means an act which has a 
sexual purpose or is of a sexual or indecent nature which 
constitutes an offense under the Criminal Code of the Code of 
Service Discipline, Some elements of sexual harassment (i.e., a pat 
on the behind) could be punishible as either a Criminal Code 
violation or an administrative sexual harassment violation. 



Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-38, "Mixed-Gender Relationships," no date 

This order establishes the standards of conduct for military 
members in public. Policy covers any personal relationship and 
outlines appropriate/inappropriate behaviors. 



Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-39, "Personal Harassment," no date. 

Under this order, "personal harassment means improper 
behaviour by an individual that is directed at or is offensive to 
another individual; that is based on personal characteristics 
including, for example, race religion, sex, sexual orientation, 
physical characteristics, or mannerisms; and that a reasonable 
person ought to have known would be unwelcome." Also under 
this order, "sexual harassment is a type of personal harassment 
that has a sexual purpose or is of a sexual nature including, but 



19 



not limited to, touching, leering, lascivious remarks and the 
display of pornographic material. " 



National Defence Headquarters of Canada. Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence (Personnel). 
"Personnel Policy Review: Canadian Forces Approach to Harassment in the Workplace." April 
1993. 

Report of results of a comprehensive review of Canadian Forces 
policy and approach to the issue of harassment which was begun 
in 1992, The report makes a number of recommendations 
regarding changes to written policy, development of an 
implementation plan, stress on communication of policy and 
harassment awareness training programs for all members; and 
special harassment training programs for leaders and supervisors. 



Legal Materials/Court Decisions 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Sys. 
Inc." EEOC Notice No. 92-1 168, March 8^ 1994. 



This document constitutes the Commission's analysis of the impact 
of Harris on previously issued Commission regulations. The 
Commission concludes that Harris is consistent with its guidelines 
(29 CFR 1604.11) and its policy guidance (EEOC Notice N'915' 
050). Accordingly, no change is required in Commission policy or 
in the way it investigates charges. 



Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual 
Harassment." EEOC Notice N-915-050, March 19, 1990. 

The document provides guidance to EEOC staff on the definition of 
sexual harassment and how to establish employer liability in light 
of recent cases. 



20 



"Legal Analysis: Sexual Harassment - A Title VII Violation." ORA Monthly Digest Vol. I, No. 
4, March 1988, pgs. 8- 14. 



Summaries of court cases dealing with sexual harassment. 
Specific cases include Barnes v. Costle [561 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 
1977)]; Bundy v. Jackson [641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981)]; 
Rogers v. EEOC [454 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1971)]; Henson v. 
Dundee [682 F. 2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)]; and Meritor Savings 
Bank, FSB v. Vinson. 



"Legal Analysis: An Update in Sexual Harassment." ORA Monthly Digest Vol. I, No. 8, 
August 1988, pgs 6-13. 



Summaries of post-Vinson court cases dealing with sexual 
harassment, including: Hicks v. Gates Rubber Company [833 
F.2d 1406 (10th Cir. 1987)]; McKinney v. Dole [765 F.2d 1129 
(D.C. Cir. 1989)]; Hall v. Gus Construction Co.. Inc. [842 F.2d 
1010 (8th Cir. 1988)]; Jones v. Wesco Investments, Inc. [846 F.2d 
1154 (8th Cir. 1988)]; Swentek v. USAIR, Inc. [830 F.2d 552 (4th 
Cir. 1987)]; Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority [668 
F.Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)]; Sparks v. Pilot Freight Carriers, 
Inc. [830 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1987)]; Henson v. Dundee [682 
F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)]; and Broderick v. Ruder [685 F.Supp. 
1269 (D.D.C. 1988)]. 



"Sexual Harassment." The Digest of EEO Law (formerly ORA Monthly Digest). Vol. V, No. 2, 
December 1991, pgs. 9-15. 

Article summarizes court cases on sexual harassment since last 
update in August 1988. New cases include Frink v. USPS [EEOC 
Appeal No. 01912399]; Cassida v. Department of the Army 
[EEOC Appeal Nos. 01893293 and01893294]; McGinnis v. 
Defense Logistics Agency [EEOC Appeal No. 01 902760] Ellison v. 
Brady [924 F. 2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991)]; Hannah v. Philadelphia 
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. [56 FEP Cases 1325 (E.D. Pa. 1991)]; 
and Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 776 International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters [762 F.Supp. 1187 (M.D. Pa. 1 991 ) ]. 



21 



Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, et al. (477 U.S. 57) U.S. Supreme Court No. 84-1979, 
June 19, 1986 



This is the first decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to deal with 
sexual harassment. The Court held that a claim of hostile 
environment sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination 
actionable under Title VII; thereby endorsing the sex 
discrimination guidelines issued by the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission in 1980. The Court also held that the 
existence of a policy against discrimination and a grievance 
procedure coupled with a complainant's failure to use that system, 
do not protect an employer from liability for discrimination. 



Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. U.S. Supreme Court No. 92-1 168, November 9, 1993. 

This is the second decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to deal with 
sexual harassment. The Court held that to be actionable as 
'^abusive work environment,'' conduct need not "seriously affect 
[an employee's] psychological well being" or lead the plaintiff to 
"suffefr] injury." 



Miscellaneous Publications 

"About Sexual Harassment in the Workplace," Booklet No. 48462. South Deerfield, MA: 
Channing L. Bete Co., Inc., 1989. 

Cartoon style booklet which summarizes a definition of sexual 
harassment, common forms of harassment, how to prevent it, and 
what to do if you have been harassed. 



"Harassment and Compensation: Today's Sex Discrimination Issues." Chicago, BL: Commerce 
Clearing House, Inc., 1981. 

Topics summarized include: comparison of racial and ethnic 
harassment; new theory of sexual harassment; hazing of women on 
the job; retaliation for resisting unwelcome advances; offensive 
atmosphere and impact on work; and how to prevent sexual 
harassment. 



22 



Laurent, Anne. "Sexual Harassment, Drawing the Line: Your Rights and Responsibilities in the 
Federal Workplace." Springfield, V A: Federal Times, 1993 

Booklet defines sexual harassment and gives examples of 
prohibited behavior. Procedures for dealing with sexual 
harassment are outlined and recommended actions for supervisors 
are made. Complaint fding procedures are outlined and 
suggestions regarding management options are made. Key legal 
decisions and laws are summarized. 



Pexton, Patrick. "Sexual Harassment, Drawing the Line: Your Rights and Responsibilities in the 
Sea Services." Springfield, VA: Navy Times, 1993. 

Suggestions are made for keeping sexual harassment out of units. 
Sexual hartassment is defined and suggestions for dealing with it 
are made. Formal procedures for handling issues are outlined and 
suggestions given for preventive measures by supervisors. 



Reischl, Dennis K. and Ralph R. Smith. "Sexual Harassment and the Federal Employee." 
Huntsville, AL: FPMi Communications, Inc., 1990. 

Booklet outlines the definition of sexual harassment and applies it 
to actual workplace examples. How to recognize sexual 
harassment in work situations is also discussed. Procedures for 
dealing with sexual harassment are suggested 



"What You Should Know About Sexual Harassment in the Workplace." Concordville, PA: 
Clement Communications, Inc., 1991. 

Sexual harassment is defined and legal issues involving the 
concept are summarized. Strategies for dealing with sexual 
harassment are presented. 



23 



Papers 



Hughes, Jean O'Gorman and Bernice R. Sandler. "Peer Harassment: Hassles for Women on 
Campus." Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges, 
September 1988. 

Peer harassment is the most common form of sexual harassment in 
the military. This article discusses peer harassment of women on 
campus, A definition is offered. The prevalence and impact of 
peer harassment is discussed and examples given. Possible causes 
of peer harassment are discussed, legal considerations are 
outlined, and the role of institutions in dealing with peer 
harassment is debated. Recommendations for dealing with the 
problem are made and specific **dos and don'ts" for students are 
listed. 



Rowe, Mary P. "Harassment Complaint Procedures: Consider a Systems Approach with 
Choices for Complainants." Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994. 

The paper presents a number of practical questions which must be 
answered by any manager or organization that is designing or 
reviewing harassment complaint procedures. The paper then 
advocates an integrated dispute resolution systems approach that 
provides options - and choice of options - for most complainants. 



Posters 

Department of the Navy. Bureau of Naval Personnel "Navy Procedures for the Processing of 
Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Complaints for Military Personnel,"(NAVPERS 15600). no 
date. 

A 17''x22" poster which outlines the informal and formal 
complaint procedures as well as Navy policy on discrimination 
and sexual harassment 



24 



Department of the Navy. Bureau of Naval Personnel. "Department of the Navy Sexual 
Harassment Advice Line," (NAVPERS 15619). no date. 

A. I7"xU" poster which provides a toll-free, DSN, and 
commercial number for use by Department of the Navy personnel 
to obtain advice about sexual harassment issues. Operators are 
capable of handling questions on discrimination as well, but this is 
not indicated on the poster. 



Department of the Navy. Bureau of Naval Personnel. "Resolving Conflict... Folio wing the Light 
of Personal Behavior," (NP- 15626). no date. 

An 11 "xl7" poster intended to illustrate the Navy's informal 
resolution system (IRS), Also provides telephone numbers for the 
Navy-wide advice line. 



Reports 

Aspin, Rep. Lees and Rep. Beverly B. Byron. "Women in the Military: The Tailhook Affair and 
the Problem of Sexual Harassment." Washington, D.C.: House Armed Services Committee (?), 
September 14, 1992. 

The report examines how to deal with sexual harassment in the 
military and how to achieve cultural change in the military. The 
report finds that there was a failure of senior leadership in the 
Navy in conducting oversight of the Tailhook convention activities. 
The report also finds that there are adequate programmatic and 
administrative tools in place in DoD to combat sexual harassment 
but that leadership may not be adequate to bring about the 
required cultural change. The type of cultural change necessary is 
equated to previous efforts to bring about racial integration in the 
military and the military's successful war against drugs. 



Chief of Naval Operations. Navy Women's Study Group. "An Update Report on the Progress of 
Women in the Navy." Washington, D.C.: Chief of Naval Operations, 1991. 

In 1990, the CNO created a group to review the implementation of 
the 1987 Study Group report, review existing policies and make 



25 



recommendations for change, and review issues such as sexual 
harassment and make recommendations. As in the 1987 report, 
Chapter 3 of the report included a review of sexual harassment 
issues. The report concludes, among other things, that sexual 
harassment is still a problem; that junior enlisted women are the 
most likely victims; that unwanted teasing and jokes are the most 
frequent form of harassment; that grievance procedures are not 
being used to resolve issues; and that the sexual harassment 
hotline needed more publicity. Nine specific recommendations for 
additional action are proposed. 



Chief of Naval Operations. Study Group on Progress of Women in the Navy. "Navy Study 
Group's Report on Progress of Women in the Navy." Washington, D.C.: Chief of Naval 
Operations, December 5, 1987, 

In 1987, the CNO created a group to review policies on the 
utilization of women in the Navy; examine issues affecting the 
quality of life, such as sexual harassment; and make 
recommendations for policy changes. Chapter HI of the report 
reviews sexual harassment issues. It concludes, among other 
things, that sexual harassment is a problem; the grievance 
procedure is ineffective; many commanding officers are unaware 
of the extent of sexual harassment within their commands; there is 
a need for alternate methods of bringing harassment complaints to 
higher levels for resolution; there are two gaps in sexual 
harassment awareness and prevention training, one for 
department head aviators and the other for executive and 
commanding officers; and sexual harassment problems are 
exacerbated by inadequacies in leadership and educational 
systems. 



Culbertson, Amy L., Paul Rosenfeld, Stephanie Booth- Kewley, and Paul Magnusson. 
"Assessment of Sexual Harassment in the Navy: Results of the 1989 Navy-wide Survey" 
(NPRDC-TR-92-11). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, 
March 1992. 

Forty-two percent of female enlisted and 26% of female officer 
respondents indicated that they had been sexually harassed during 
the 1-year survey period. Four percent of male enlisted and l%of 
male officer respondents indicated that they had been sexually 
harassed during the 1-year survey period. Characteristics of 



26 



sexual harassment perpetrators are analyzed, along with actions of 
the victims after harassment. Survey results are compared with 
MSPB study of sexual harassment and DoD survey of sex roles in 
1988-89, 



Culbertson, Amy L., Paul Rosenfeld, and Carol E. Newell. "Sexual Harassment in the Active - 
Duty Navy: Findings from the 1991 Navy - Wide Survey" (NPRDC-TR-94-2). San Diego, CA: 
Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, December 1993. 

Forty-four percent of female enlisted and 33% of female officer 
respondents indicated that they had been sexually harassed during 
the 1-year survey period. Eight percent of male enlisted and 2% of 
male officer respondents indicated that they had been sexually 
harassed during the 1-year survey period. These findings 
represent statistically significant increases from the 1989 survey. 
Report provides information about the type of harassment, 
characteristics of harassers and victims, and preventive actions 
taken from 1989 to 1991. 

Department of Defense. Office of Inspector General. "Report of Investigation: Review of the 
Treatment of Women at the Naval Training Center, Orlando." (Case # S90C00000162). 
Arlington, VA: DoD IG, June 4, 1991. 

Report summarizes the findings from a survey of 2,000 women 
using the DMDC 1988 survey of sex roles instrument; interviews of 
168 personnel concerning sexual harassment and fraternization; 
review of investigations of rapes and indecent assaults from 1988- 
1990; and a review of installation policies concerning sexual 
harassment, fraternization, and indecent assault. Results 
compatible with the 1991 DMDC report of its 1988-89 survey 
results were found. There was a perception, however, that persons 
of high rank who fraternized had their indiscretions covered-up by 
subordinates, that victims of indecent assault were not adequately 
apprised of developments during the investigative and 
prosecutoral phases, and that organizations responsible for rape 
and assault investigations did not effectively coordinate their 
actions. 



27 



Department of Defense. Inspector General. "Report of Investigation: Tailhook 91 - Part 1, 
Review of the Navy Investigations." Arlington, VA: DoD IG, September 21, 1992. 

Report summarizes events which occurred at the Tailhook 
convention and investigations conducted by the Naval 
Investigative Service (NIS) and the Naval IG. Report concludes 
that while investigations of the criminal assault allegations were 
generally goody the scope of investigations should have been 
broadened to include other violations of law and regulation as 
they became apparent. Report also concludes that inadequacies 
in the investigations were caused by collective management and 
personal failures of senior Navy leaders. 



Department of Defense. Inspector General. "Report of Investigation: Tailhook 91 - Part 2, 
Events of the 35th Annual Tailhook Symposium." Arlington, VA: DoD IG, April 12, 1993. 
Also for sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office, ISBN 0'16'041663'9. 

Report provides background on the Tailhook Association and its 
relationship with the Navy, Events which took place at the 1991 
Tailhook convention are summarized including: squadron 
hospitality suites, indecent assaults, indecent exposure, other 
improper activity, hotel and Association security, and officer 
attitudes and leadership issues. Report finds that 83 women and 7 
men were assaulted during the convention. One hundred 
seventeen (117) officers were implicated in one or more incidents 
of indecent assault, indecent exposure, conduct unbecoming an 
officer, or failure to act in a proper leadership capacity. Fifty-one 
persons were found to have made false statements to DoDIG 
investigators. 



Department of Defense. Inspector General. "Review of Military Department Investigations of 
Allegations of Discrimination by Military Personnel." Arlington, VA: DoD IG, March 1994. 

From Aug'Oct 1993, the DoDIG visited eight military installations 
and reviewed all documentation on 152 investigations of 
discrimination complaints. One hundred fifty-two persons, in 
varying capacities were also interviewed. The report concludes 
that 86% of the investigations contained sufficient evidence to 
support the conclusions drawn and were also considered by the 
DoDIG to be adequate investigations. 



28 



Department of Defense. Task Force on Women in the Military. "Report [of the] Task Force on 
Women in the Military." Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary of Defense, January 1988. 

The Task Force on Women in the Military was created by the 
Secretary of Defense as a result of continuing concerns raised by 
the DACOWITS about the full integration of women in the military. 
The Task Force was chaired by the PDASD (FM&P) and had as 
members the Assistant Secretary for Manpower from each of the 
Military Departments; the J-1, OJCS; the Ast Gen, Counsel 
(P&HP), DoD; and the Deputy Exec. Sec'y, Natl Sec, Council, In 
its review of attitudes toward women in the Services, the Task 
Force specifically looked at the problem of sexual harassment. 
Among the Task Force recommendations were: (1 ) That a DoD- 
wide survey of sexual harassment be conducted in 1988; (2) That 
DoD adopt a standard definition of sexual harassment for use by 
all the Services; (3) That sexual harassment training be reviewed 
and expanded; and (4) That Service discrimination complaint 
systems be amended to provide for feedback and four other areas. 



Department of the Navy. Naval Inspector General. "NAVINSGEN Study of the Command 
Managed Equal Opportunity (CMEO) Program" (Ser 03/3159). Memorandum dated August 9, 
1993. 

The report summarizes early equal opportunity efforts from 1971- 
1988. It notes that none of the commands visited for the study 
were in compliance with the minimum elements of the CMEO. It 
was further noted that there was a disparity in support for the 
CMEO and that many discrepancies noted had been identified 
previously by a Chief of Naval Operations Study Group in 1988, 
This report focuses on four problems: (1) Commanding officers do 
not understand or support the CMEO; (2) Equal Opportunity 
Program Specialists are not effectively utilized; (3) Command 
Assessment TReam training is ineffective; and (4) The Navy's 
Equal Opportunity Manual lacks direction, focus, clarity, and 
simplicity. The report makes 17 recommendations and requires 
quarterly status reports on implementation. 



Gilden, Nina Beth, "Countering Sexual Harassment: Theory and Applications for the 
Department of Defense." Final report submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Equal Opportunity), March 1981. 



29 



The study assesses the causes, manifestations, and solutions to 
sexual harassment in the civilian and military workplace. The 
report recommends a broad definition of sexual harassment to be 
issued in SecDef guidance. It also discourages any military-wide 
survey of sexual harassment as superfluous or the use of hotlines 
because they will not be used for the purpose intended. Extensive 
and specialized training for all personnel is recommended. 



Martindale, Melanie. "Sexual Harassment in the Military: 1988." Arlington, VA: Defense 
Manpower Data Center, September 1990. 

Report provides results of survey of 20,250 active duty personnel 
in 1988-89 concerning sex roles in the military and sexual 
harassment. Sixty-four percent of female personnel and 17% of 
male personnel responding indicated they had experienced some 
form of sexual harassment in the year prior to the survey. Sexual 
teasing and jokes were most common (82% of women); followed by 
sexually suggestive looks, gestures, or body language (69% of 
women); and touching, leaning over, cornering, pinching^ or 
brushing against (60% of women). Male co-workers, acting alone, 
were reported as the most common perpetrators. 



Naval Inspector General. "Report of Investigation: Department of the Navy/Tailhook 
Association Relationship and Personal Conduct Surrounding Tailhook '91 Symposium" (Case 
920684) [FOUO]. Washington, D.C.: Naval Inspector General, April 29, 1992. 

The report recommends that the Secretary of the Navy terminate 
all Department of the Navy support of the Tailhook Association; 
that the facts surrounding the Tailhook symposium be 
disseminated as well as corrective actions; that sexual harassment 
reeducation and prevention programs be developed; and that the 
aviation communities be required to demonstrate active programs 
for the deglamorization of alcohol 



30 



Nixon, George John. "Gender Discrimination in the Civil Service: A Discriminant Analysis of 
U.S. Army Case Files." PhD Dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of 
Alabama, 1994. 

The author reviewed 326 sex discrimination complaint case files 
processed by the Army in FY 1992. The study revealed that a 
majority of sexual harassment complainants were white women 
whereas a majority of all other sex discrimination complainants 
were minority women. Sexual harassment complainants were 
found to be younger than other sex discrimination complainants, 
a sizeable majority of complainants were white collar GS 
employees. Only 8% of sexual harassment complaints involved 
same -sex harassment, whereas 41% of all other sex discrimination 
complaints involved same-sex offenders. More than 75% of sexual 
harassment complaints involved supervisors whereas slightly more 
than 50% of all other sex discrimination complaints involved 
direct supervisors. More than half (56%) of all sexual harassment 
complaints in the Army came from just two of the 15 major 
commands in the Army, 



Popovich, Paula M. "An Examination of Sexual Harassment Complaints in the Air Force for FY 
1987," Summer Faculty Research Program (Rept#: DEOMI-88-5). Patrick Air Force Base: 
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, September 30, 1988. 

The study examined 163 formal complaints of sexual harassment 
filed in FY 1987. Most of the victims were found to be white 
enlisted women. Most of the confirmed harassers were found to be 
white enlisted men, generally of a higher grade than the victims. 
Black men, however, were found to be statistically significantly 
overrepresented in the confirmed harasser class. The most 
frequent behavior complained of was "offensive language." 
"Hostile environment" harassment was found to be more common 
than "quid pro quo. " 



Storey, Rosemary H. "Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update." 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, June 1988. 

This report follows'up on an earlier report issued in 1981. The 
1988 report presents information on a survey of Federal 
employees to which 8,523 person responded. Forty-two percent of 
all women and 14% of all men reported they had experienced some 



31 



form of unwanted and uninvited sexual attention in the survey 
period. Unwanted sexual teasing and jokes were the most frequent 
form of attention cited. Coworkers were much more likely than 
supervisors to be the harassers. 



U.S. General Accounting Office. "Air Force Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities" 
(GAO/NSIAD-93-244). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, September 1993. 

At the request of the Chair of the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services y the GAO reviewed the treatment of minorities and women 
at the Air Force Academy, Specifically, GAO investigators looked 
for differences in performance indicators between men and women 
and between whites and minorities; student perceptions of fairness 
of treatment of minorities and women; and actions taken at the 
Academy to address disparities and improve the assimilation of 
minorities and women. Of 12 indicators used to measure 
performance, the GAO found that women did better than men in 2, 
men did better than women in 3 and in 4 there were mixed results. 
Using the same 12 indicators, GAO investigators found that whites 
did better than minorities in 7, minorities did better than whites in 
1, and in 3 there were mixed results. 



U.S. General Accounting Office. "Defense Force Management: Composition of Groups 
Affected by Fiscal Year 1991 Force Reductions" (GAO/NSIAD-92-31). Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. General Accounting Office, February 1992. 

Responding to a request from the Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel and Compensation, House Committee on 
Armed Services, the GAO compiled information on selected 
actions the Services had taken or might take to reduce the active 
force and on the race, sex, ethnicity of persons affected by those 
actions. The GAO concluded that persons reduced contained a 
higher proportion of minorities and women than the total 
population of their respective grades. 



U.S. General Accounting Office. "Defense Force Management: Occupation Distribution and 
Composition" (GAO/NSIAD-92-85). Washington D,C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 
March 1992. 



32 



At the request of the Chair, Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
and Compensation, House Committee on Armed Services, the GAO 
compiled information on the representation of minorities and 
women within the major occupation groups of the Armed Forces, 
The GAO found that in comparison to whites, blacks were 
overrepresented in engineering and maintenance, administrators, 
and supply/procurement. Women were overrepresented in health 
care and administrators. Among enlisted occupations, blacks were 
overrepresented in functional support and service and supply 
handlers. 



U.S. General Accounting Office. "DoD Service Academies: Further Efforts Needed to Eradicate 
Sexual Harassment" (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-1 1 1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting 
Office, February 3, 1994. 

Statement by Mark E, Gebicke, Director, Military Operations and 
Capabilities Issues, National Security and International Affairs 
Division, Generla Accounting Office, before the Subcommittee on 
Force Requirements and Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, 
US, Senate, The statement summarizes the background to and 
results of the GAO's January 1994 report on sexual harassment at 
the academies. It goes on to indicate that sexual harassment 
continues at the academies, that women at the academies tend to 
deal with the problem informally, and that academy programs 
generally meet DoD guidelines. The statement then summarizes 
additional steps taken at the academies and presents other options 
for sexual harassment prevention programs. 



U.S. General Accounting Office. "DoD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate 
Sexual Harassment" (GAO/NSIAD-94-6). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 
January 1994. 

At the request of the Chair of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, the GAO reviewed the issue of sexual harassment at all 
three of the service academies. Specifically, GAO investigators 
examined the extent to which sexual harassment occurred at the 
academies, the forms it took, and its effects on those subjected to it. 
The investigators also evaluated the academies* efforts to eradicate 
sexual harassment The GAO concluded that sexual harassment 
continues at the academies. Between 93% and 97% of academy 
women reported experiencing at least on form of sexual 
harassment during the previous year, most generally in the form of 



33 



derogatory comments. The GAO also found that the academies' 
sexual harassment prevention programs generally met DoD 
guidelines in all areas except inspector general reviews, which did 
not include sexual harassment prevention and education as an item 
of special interest The GAO also concluded that the academies 
have not evaluated their sexual harassment eradication programs 
in a routine or systematic manner. 



U.S. General Accounting Office. "Military Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities" 
(GAO/NSIAD-94-95). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, March 1994. 

At the request of the Chair of the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services, the GAO reviewed the treatment of minorities and women 
at the Military Academy, Specifically, the GAO investigators 
looked for differences in performance indicatorsa between men 
and women and between whites and minorities; student 
perceptions of fairness of treatment of women and minorities; and 
actions taken at the Academy to enhance the success of women and 
minorities at the Academy. The investigators found that of 11 
performance indicators examined, women consistently scored 
higher than men in 2, men scored consistently higher than women 
in 2, scores between men and women were about equal in 2, and 
results were mixed in 5. Investigators also found that using the 
same 11 indicators, whites scored higher than minorities in 8 and 
that results were mixed in 3, 



U.S. General Accounting Office. "Naval Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities" 
(GAO/nsiad-93-54). Washington, D.C,: U.S. General Accounting Office, April 1993. 

At the request of the Chair of the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services, the GAO reviewed the treatment of minorities and women 
at the Naval Academy. Specifically, GAO investigators looked for 
differences in performance indicators between men an women and 
between whites and minorities; student perceptions of fairness of 
treatment of women and minorities; and actions taken at the 
Academy to address disparities and improve the assimilation of 
minorities and women. The GAO found that women had higher 
SAT scores and Academy success predictor scores than men, but 
had lower grade point averages as first year students and lower 
class standings as fourth year students. Women also had lower 
military performance grades and rankings. Minorities had lower 



34 



SAT scores and Academy success predictor scores than whites and 
generally received lower grades and had lower class standings. 



U.S. General Accounting Office. "Operation Desert Storm: Race and Gender Comparison of 
Deployed Forces with All Active Duty Forces" (GAO/NSIAD-92-1 1 IFS). Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1992. 

At the request of the Chair, Legislation and National Security 
Subcommittee, House Committee on Government Operations, the 
GAO compiled information comparing the representation of 
women and minorities among the troops deployed to Operations 
Desert Shield/Desert Storm with the representation of each group 
among all active duty military personnel The GAO found that the 
representation of blacks among deployed troops was 3% higher 
than among all troops; the representation of white men was 4% 
lower; and the representation of women was 5% lower. 



Training Materials/Lesson Plans 

Anderson, Stephen and Trisha Brinkman. "Sexual Harassment: Facts vs. Expensive Myths - 
Management Personnel's Workbook." Denver, CO and San Francisco, CA: Anderson-davis, 
1988. 

Combination of reading material and exercises for use by 
management personnel to learn about sexual harassment. 
Materials include facts and muths about sexual harassment, 
definition of terms, background on law and regulations, how to 
work with complainants, dealing with harassers, and frequently 
asked questions. 



Department of the Air Force. Headquarters US AF. Air Force Military Personnel Center. "Base 
Level Sexual Harassment Awareness Training Course - Instructor Guide." June 1993. 

Two hour course which reviews DoD and Air Force policy 
guidance; defines sexual harassment; reviews the various forms of 
sexual harassment; covers the effects of sexual harassment on the 
victim and the organization; and identifies the means for seeking 



35 



relief. The course concludes by reviewing the individual's role and 
the commander's/supervisor's responsibilities. 



Department of the Air Force. Headquarters USAF. Air Force Military Personnel Center. "First 
Duty Station (FDS) - Human Relations Education Student Handout," (Course # BL201 AO), 
April 1987. 

The FDS Orientation is a five hour program required for all 
military and civilian personnel within 30 days after arrival at their 
first permanent duty assignment. The orientation provides a brief 
historical review of the Air Force's approach to human relations. 
The DoD Human Goals Charter and various DoD and Air Force 
policy memoranda are reviewed. Students are shown how verbal 
and non-verbal symbols influence 

interpersonal/interracial/intercultural communication. The 
components of prejudice and discriminatory behavior are 
explained. Examples of arbitrary discrimination, including sexual 
harassment, are given. The effects of human relations issues on 
mission accomplishment are reviewed. The orientation concludes 
with an explanation of the individual's role in preventing and 
resolving equal opportunity and treatment (EOT) and equal 
employment opportunity (EEO) problems. 



Department of the Air Force. Headquarters USAF. Air Force Military Personnel Center. 
"Social Actions Education Program," (Air Force Pamphlet 36-2702). July 1, 1993. 

Pamphlet is a guide for planning and conducting Social Actions 
education presentations. It provides background information and 
descriptions of Social Actions education and awareness programs, 
techniques on developing lesson plans and speaking effectively, 
and a list of resources including current lesson plans available 
and a list of audiovisual resources. 



Department of the Navy. Bureau of Naval Personnel. "Training Information Resource Library." 
Memorandum dated August 31, 1993. 

Memorandum describes seven videos and seven books in the 
Navy's Training Information Resource (TIR) Library. 



36 



Department of the Navy. Chief of Naval Education and Training. "Command Training Team 
Indoctrination Course Student Guide," (Ser 00M4/174) September 25, 1992. 

Memorandum transmits changes to the training materials for 
members of command action team inspection members. Specific 
changes included affect the Navy Rights and Responsibilities 
Workshop, Specifically y the ''policy documents" and 
''grievance/redress procedures" lesson topics are affected. In the 
"policy documents" lesson, the Navy Equal Opportunity Manual is 
reviewed and the definition of sexual harassment and table of 
penalties for types of sexual harassment are included. In the 
"grievance/redress procedures" lesson, protection from reprisal is 
covered but only in the generic sense as being a part of the 
grievance system. Protection from reprisal for using the 
discrimination complaint process is not specified. 



Department of the Navy, Chief of Naval Education and Training. "DON FY-94 Sexual 
Harassment Prevention and Informal Resolution System Training - Facilitation Guide," no date. 

Training handbook which outlines the Navy's sexual harassment 
training program for FY94, Provides a summary of the video 
"Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, „Identify, Stop, Prevent; "an 
outline of information about sexual harassment; suggested 
introductory remarks for use in the mandatory training; and 
suggested questions and answers for use during post training 
discussion. 



Department of the Navy. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. "The Prevention of Sexual 
Harassment and the Responsible Use of Alcohol Training Package." July 29, 1992. 

Package of training materials disseminated for use during 
mandated one day training stand-down as part of post-Tailhook 
actions. Materials include a lesson plan for a 3-4 hour block of 
instruction on sexual harassment and discrimination complaint 
procedures; master slides to accompany the lesson plan; 
presentation of military and civilian case studies of harassment; 
bibliography of training resources for military and civilian 
personnel; and appendices with supplementary material 



37 



Department of the Navy. Office of the Secretary. "Department of the Navy Informal Resolution 
System (IRS) Training Package." May 12, 1993. 

The Basic training package contains three lesson plans and 
accompanying slides: (1) A senior level plan for Flag Officers, 
Senior Executive Service, Commanding officers 0-5 and above. 
Sergeants Major, and Command Master Chiefs; (2) A mid-level 
plan for persons not classed as senior or entry; and (3) An entry - 
level plan for military and civilian personnel to be delivered within 
90 days of accession. The basic package is supplemented by an 
IRS skills booklet [see "Resolving Conflict NP-l 5620 in documents 
above] and a Training Information Resource (TIR) Library [see 
videos below]. 



Department of Transportation. U.S. Coast Guard. Office of Civil Rights. "Coast Guard Civil 
Rights Standardized Training FaciItator*s Guide." no date. 

Four part training package which constitutes the Coast Guard's 
mandate triennial civil rights training for all members. Includes 
the masters for overhead slides as well as student handouts for 
four two-hour long workshops. Workshop topics are: sexual 
harassment; orientation; basic human awareness; and 
communications. 



Headquarters, Department of the Army. "Commander's Equal Opportunity Handbook," (Draft 
Training Circular 26-6). Not yet issued, no date. 

First of a kind document. Intended for primary use by company 
and battalion commanders, with some applicability for division 
and installation commanders. Seven chapters cover the Army's 
Equal Opportunity program; EO duties of unit leaders; leadership 
issues related to cultural diversity; prevention of sexual 
harassment; EO complaint process; EO climate assessment; and 
intervention and action planning. 



Headquarters, Department of the Army. "Unit Equal Opportunity Training Guide," (DA PAM 
350-20). Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, August 30, 1993. 



38 



Publication contains fifteen lesson plans for use in conducting unit 
EO training as required by the Department of the Army. Masters 
for overhead transparancies and practical exercise handouts are 
also included. Lesson plan 4 is devoted to sexual harassment. It 
focuses on defining sexual harassment; identifying forms of sexual 
harassment; major components of EO programs; effects of sexual 
harassment; victims actions; and practical exercises. Sexual 
harassment lesson plan is designed for 60 minutes. 



Headquarters, Department of the Army. "Unit Equal Opportunity Training Guide, Change 1," 
(DA PAM 350-20). Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, anticipated 
publication July 1994. 

Change contains new lesson plans for prevention of sexual 
harassment, EO violations subject to the UCMJ actions, and Army 
Equal Opportunity complaint procedures. The prevention of 
sexual harassment training is expanded from 60 minutes to 120 
minutes. New topics include victim impact, sexual harassment 
checklist, coping mechanisims, components of prevention, and 
recommended techniques in dealing with sexual harassment. The 
equal opportunity complaint procedures lesson is expanded from 
30 to 50 minutes. A new process, with a complaint form and 
timelines are introduced. 



"Training Information Resource (TIR) Library Bibliography." No source swpecified. No date. 

Marine Corps version of Department of the Navy, Bureau of Naval 
Personnel, training information resource library memo of August 
31, 1993. Identifies seven books and eight videos in the resource 
library. Specifies addresses of seventeen locations which have a 
set of the books and videos available for loan. 



United States Marine Corps. Human Resources Division. "Team Marine." December 10, 1993. 

Complete training package consisting of a lesson plan, statement 
by the Commandant on Core Values, masters for overhead slides 
to accompany lesson plan, and a list of resources to supplement 
the training. The lesson plan covers the following topics: 



39 



teamwork, dijferences in people, perceptions of others, stereotypes, 
bias, prejudicial treatment, discrimination, racism, added stress, 
and corrective actions. 



United States Marine Corps. Lesson Plans 

United States Navy. Lesson Plans. 

Enlisted Accession Point Training Course (NAVEDTRA 7538) - 

[Time devoted to EO - 1 hour 15 minutes] Course is in two 
sections: {1} equal opportunity introduction and sexual 
harassment/fraternization training objectives include EO as it 
applies within the Navy, definition of terms, prejudices we all have, 
prejudices that have no basis, individual responsibilities 
concerning EO, description of sexual harassment, terms associated 
with sexual harassment, individuals responsibility if being 
harassed, differences between sexual harassment and sexual 
discrimination, and types of verbal and physical harassment; and 
(2) command managed equal opportunity [ CMEO] and grievance 
procedures - training objectives include description of the CMEO 
program, why the CMEO program is needed, requirements the 
CMEO places on the chain of command, and results of the CMEO; 

Senior Enlisted Academy (P-OO-ISOO) - [6 one hour blocks - 
includes two videos totaling 39 minutes ] Sexual Harassment and 
Fraternization. Topics include definition of sexual harassment, 
examples of sexual harassment, and discussion of case studies 

Senior Warrant Officer School (Lesson 4.15) - [length unknown] 
Block of instruction on sexual harassment and fraternization 
Consists of short required reading, case study, and discussion. 

Officer Accession Point Training Course (NAVEDTRA 7535) - 
[Time devoted to EO - 1 hour 35 minutes] Course is in three 
sections: (1) equal opportunity introduction and sexual 
harassment/fraternization — training objectives include EO as it 
applies within the Navy, definition of terms, prejudices we all have, 
prejudices that have no basis, individual responsibilities 
concerning EO, description of sexual harassment, terms associated 
with sexual harassment, individual's responsibility if being 
harassed, differences between sexual harassment and sexual 
discrimination, and types of verbal and physical harassment; (2) 



40 



command managed equal opportunity- [CMEO] and grievance 
procedures - training objectives include description of the CMEO 
program, why the CMEO program is needed, requirements the 
CMEO places on the chain of command, and results of the CMEO; 
and (3) responsibilities of leaders training objectives include 
leadership responsibilities for EO, areas in EO in which leaders 
must exercise good management practices, support available to 
leaders from Equal opportunity program specialists, requirements 
for incident handling and reporting, and command responsibilities 
for the EO program. 

Equal Opportunity for Prospective Commanding Officers [2 

hours 5 minutes] Topics covered include definition ofEO, history 
ofEO in the Navy, Navy CMEO improvement programs, review of 
the CMEO program, results of Navy-wide EO surveys, 
commanding officer's responsibilities for EO, and commanding 
officer case study. Training objectives include demonstrate 
understanding of Navy EO policy, procedures, and requirements; 
the need for commanding officer leadership in creating and 
maintaining a positive EO climate; the relationship between EO 
climate and commanding officer attitudes and actions; purpose 
and major content areas of the Navy Equal Opportunity Manual; 
informal and formal grievance procedures; and assess a case 
study involving a commander's EO actions. 

Recruit Company Commander School [40 minutes] Topics 
covered include themes in EO, EO role of the recruit company 
commander, relationship between EO and discrimination, and EO 
responsibilities of the recruit company commander 



Videos 

Department of Defense. Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. "DoD Defines Sexual 
Harassment." 3:00 minutes, 1988. 

News story for Armed Forces Digest Discusses newly issued DoD 
standard definition of "sexual harassment. " Features Col William 
Walton, USAF, Director of Military Equal Opportunity, ODASD 
(CPP/EO). 



41 



Department of Defense. Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. "DoD Surveys Sexual 
Harassment." 1:30 minutes, 1988. 

News story for Armed Forces Digest. Discusses decision to 
conduct survey of sexual harassment in the military. Indicates the 
survey was recommended by DoD Task Force on Women in the 
Military. Features Mr. David Armor, PDASD (FM&P). 



Department of the Navy. "'Sexual Harassment' Identify, Stop, Prevent." 37:23 minutes 

Captain Greg Williams and Ms. Hanson, the civilian EEO officer, 
discuss the necessity of communicating to his senior staff that 
everyone has a right to work and serve in an environment free 
from sexual harassment. Ms. Hanson briefs him on the Navy's new 
informal resolution system (IRS). 

At the staff meeting, Ms. Hanson briefs everyone on the legal 
history of sexual harassment, the Navy IRS, and the Navy's 
guidelines defining sexual harassment. A series of dramatic 
vignettes are shown and discussed with the staff. 

The video concludes with Capt. Williams reviewing the IRS and the 
IRS booklet. 



U.S. Coast Guard. "Sexual Harassment." 18:00 minutes. 



42 



DoD Directive 1350.2, "The Department of Defense Military 
Equal Opportunity Program," December 23, 1988 



Tab E 





December 23, 1988 
NUMBER 1350.2 



ASD(FM&P) 

SUBJECT: The Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program 



References: (a) DoD Directive 1350.2, "The Department of Defense Military 



Equal Opportunity Program," April 29, 1987 (hereby canceled) 

(b) DoD Human Goals Charter, March 21, 1988 (signed by the 
Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, 
Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Service Chiefs) 

(c) Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "Equal Opportunity for 
Military Members within the Department of Defense," 
May 2, 1988 

(d) DoD Directive 5410.18, "Community Relations," July 3, 1974 

(e) through (k), see enclosure 1 



A. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE 
This Directive: 

1. Reissues reference (a). 

2. Regulates the Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity (EO) 
Program and assigns responsibilities for ensuring DoD-wide compliance with 
the broad program objectives outlined in reference (b). 

3. Provides for education and training in EO and human relations . 

4. Prescribes the functions of the Defense Equal Opportunity Council (DEOC), 
the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), and the Board of 
Visitors (BOV) to DEOMI. 

B. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE 
This Directive: 

1. Applies to all military members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD), the Military Departments (including their National Guard and Reserve 
components), the Joint Staff, the Unified and Specified Commands, the Defense 
Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities (hereafter referred to collectively as 
"DoD Components"). The term "Military Services," as used herein, refers to the 
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. 

2. Applies to DoD contracted organizations that provide services to military 
personnel and their families. 



3. Does not apply to civilian personnel, except as noted in section B.2., 
above . 



C. DEFINITIONS 



The terms used in this Directive are defined in enclosure 2. 
D. POLICY 

It is DoD policy to: 

1. Support the military EO program as an integral element in total force 
readiness, as defined in the Secretary of Defense Memorandum (reference (c)), 
and enforce at all levels of activity the EO provisions of this Directive in 
developing operating EO policies and programs. 

2. Use the chain of command to promote, support, and enforce the military 
EO program. The chain of command is the primary and preferred channel for 
correcting discriminatory practices and for ensuring that human relations and 
EO matters are enacted. 

3. Ensure the Military Services (to include the Reserve components) main- 
tain military EO and affirmative action programs. Discrimination that adversely 
affects persons or groups based on race, color, religion, gender, age, or 
national origin, and that is not supported legally, is contrary to good order 
and discipline, and is counterproductive to combat readiness and mission 
accomplishment. Discrimination of this nature shall not be condoned or tolerated. 

A. Provide education and training in EO and human relations at installation 
and fleet unit commands. Military Service accession points, and throughout 
the professional military education (PME) system, 'as part of the overall effort 
to achieve equal opportunity. 

5. Provide for an environment that is free from sexual harassment by 
eliminating this form of discrimination in the Depart&ent^of Defense. 

6. Ensure that all on-base activities and, to the extent of the ability 
of DoD, any off-base activities available to military personnel are open to 
all military personnel and their authorized family members regardless of race, 
color, religion, age, physical or mental handicap, gender, or national origin, 
as called for by the DoD Human Goals Charter (reference (b)). 

a. Organizations or activities that do not meet this requirement shall 
be denied the use of military facilities and resources in accordance with DoD 
Directive 5410.18 (reference (d)). This policy applies equally to those 
organizations that may discriminate based on the content of their constitutions, 
bylaws, rules or regulations, as well as to those which, in the judgment of the 
responsible commander(s) , are engaging in de facto discrimination regardless of 
the content of their constitutions, bylaws, rules or regulations. 

b. Organizations that use on-base facilities, whether on a reimbursable 
basis or otherwise, must satisfy the responsible area or activity commander that 
they do not discriminate through their actual membership practices or in any 

of their activities. 



2 



Doc 23. 
1350.2 



88 



7. Oppose discrimination in off-base housing directed against military 
personnel and their authorized family members. Each commander shall take 
actions to overcome such discrimination and to impose off-limits sanctions 
in housing cases, as required by DoD Instruction 1100.16 (reference (e)), 

8. Impose, as required, the off-limits sanction according to the Armed 
Forces Disciplinary Control Board as stated in the Joint Regulation (reference 
(f)), in cases of discrimination involving places of public accommodations 
outside military installations. 

E. RESPONSIBILITIES 

1- The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) 
(ASD(FM&P)) shall: "* ~ 

a. Represent and advise the Secretary of Defense in military EG 
matters consistent with DoD Directive 5124.2 (reference (g)). 

b. Chair the Defense Equal Opportunity Council. 

c. Provide guidance on developing all DoD programs to ensure equal 
opportunity for military personnel in the total force. 

d. Develop, execute, and monitor the effectiveness of military EO 
policies in support of national security objectives. 

e. Ensure that DoD Components fulfill the requirements of this 
Directive. 

f . Provide policy direction to DEOMI and select the Commandant of 
DEOMI from Military Service nominations. 

g. Establish categories and monitor specific goals to be included in 
the affirmative action programs and annual military EO assessments of each 
DoD Component. 

h. Review and act on (or refer to appropriate Military Service) all 
complaints of discrimination arising under this Directive (to include sexual 
harassment) referred to the Secretary of Defense. 

i. Ensure fair, impartial and timely investigation, resolution, and 
follow-up of all complaints of discrimination arising under this Directive 
at all levels within the Department of Defense. 

j . Establish a program to recognize individuals and organizations for 
outstanding achievement in one or more of the major EO areas covered by this 
Directive. 

2- The Heads of DoD Components shall be responsible for equal opportunity 
within their respective jurisdictions (to include their Reserve components) and 
shall: 

a. Ensure that all DoD EO policies and programs are understood and 
.executed at all levels of military command. 



3 



b. Establish affirmative action programs that identify and resolve EO 
problems through formulating, maintaining, and reviewing a f f i rmative action 
plans (AAPs) with established objectives and milestones and including account- 
ability in personnel management consistent with DoD Instruction 1350.3 

( reference (h) ) . 

c. Forward a fiscal year report to the ASD(FM&P) outlining the pro- 
gress being made to achieve the established military EO objectives of the AAP. 
This report shall be due each year on February 1, and is described further in 
reference (h) . 

d. Establish policies that include specific actions to be taken against 
any individual who commits an act of discrimination^ as defined in enclosure 2 of 
this Directive, 

e> Rewrite documents and change practices that discriminate against mili- 
tary personnel based on race, religion, color, gender, or national origin. This 
requirement does not apply to those Military Service documents that implement 
statutes or DoD/Service policy requiring different treatment of military 
personnel based on age or gender. 

^1 Establish policies and procedures to prevent sexual harassment 
and to ensure that appropriate action is taken against individuals who commit 
sexual harassment offenses, in accordance with the Secretary of Defense 
Memorandums (references (i), (j), and (k)). 

->g. Ensure that all military personnel, including command-selectees and 
flag and general officers, receive training in equal opportunity, human relations, 
and prevention of sexual harassment on a recurring basis, and at all levels of 
PME. 

-'>\hy Establish and fill sufficient full-time staff positions and allocate 
sufficient resources to conduct all EO programs. Equal opportunity staff per- 
sonnel shall be placed at a level that enables them to communicate effectively 
the goals and objectives of the program and obtain the understanding, support, 
and commitment of the organization's leaders. 

-V- i. Ensure that all discrimination complaints are investigated in a fair, 
impartial, and prompt manner, 

-■^(T) Ensure that consideration of EO program support is included in the 
instructions that guide rating officials in preparing efficiency reports and/or 
evaluations on their subordinates. 

k. Develop management information and reporting systems to determine the 
progress for each AAP goal consistent with DoD Instruction 1350,3 (reference (h)). 

-^tj Establish EO awards programs to recognize individuals and organizational 
units for outstanding achievement in any of the EO areas covered by this 
Directive or Military Service-unique programs. 



1350.2 



F. I NFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 

An annual report is required and is assigned Report Control Symbol 
DD-FM&P(A) 1760. Reporting requirements are contained in enclosure 3 and 
further amplified in DoD Instruction 1350.3 (reference (h)). 



G. EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPLEMENTATION 

This Directive is effective immediately. Forward one copy of implementing 
documents to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) 
within 120 days. 



William Taft, IV 
Enclosures - 4 Deputy Secretary of Defense 

1 . References 

2. Definitions 

3. Military EO Reporting Requirements 
A. Organizations and Functions 



5 



{)^c 23. 88 
1350, 2 (End 1) 



REFERENCES, continued 

(e) DoD Instruction 1100.16, ''Equal Opportunity in Off-Base Housing " 
June 2, 1977 ' 

(f) Joint Regulation--AR 190-24, MCO 1620.2, AFR 125-11, COMDTINST 1620. lA, 
"Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Boards and Of f -Ins ta llation Military 
Enforcement Services," January 11, 1972 

(g) DoD Directive 5124.2, "Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and 
Personnel)," July 5, 1985 

(h) DoD Instruction 1350.3, "Affirmative Action Planning and Assessment Process 
February 29, 1988 

(i) Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "Sexual Harassment and Discrimination " 
December 24, 1986 ' 

(j) Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "DoD Definition of Sexual Harassment." 
July 20, 1988 

(k) Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "Responsibility for Maintaining a Work 
Force Free of Sexual Harassment," September 2, 1988 



Available through Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or U.S. Coast Guard 
publication distribution channels. 



1-1 



Dec 23, 88 
i3b0.2 (Hucl 2) 



D EFINITIONS 

1- Affirmative Action . Methods used to achieve the objectives of the EO 
program. Processes, activities, and systems designed to identify, eliminate, 
prevent, and work to overcome the effects of discriminatory treatment as it 
affects the upward mobility and quality of life for DoD personnel. 

2. Discrimination . Illegal treatment of a person or group based on handicap, 
race, color, national origin, age, religion, or gender. 

3. DoD Military Equal Opportunity (EO) Program . The DoD-wide military program 
of equal opportunity that is accomplished through efforts by DoD Components. 

It provides an eavironiDent in which every member of the total force is ensured 
an opportunity to rise to as high a level of responsibility as possible in the 
military profession, dependent only on merit, fitness, and capability. 

A. Equal Opportunity (EO) . The right of all persons to participate in and bene 
fit from programs and activities for which they are qualified. These programs 
and activities shall be free from social, personal, or institutional barriers 
that prevent people from rising to as high a level of responsibility as possible 
Persons shall be evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, and capability, 
regardless of race, color, gender, national origin, age, or handicap except as 
prescribed by statute, or DoD/Service policy. 

5. Ethnic Group . A segment of the population that possesses common charac- 
teristics and a cultural heritage based to some degree on the following: 

a. common geographic origin; 

b. race; 

c. language or dialect; 

d. religious faith or faiths; 

e. shared traditions, values, or symbols; 

f. literature, folklore, or music; 

g. an internal sense of distinctiveness; and/or 

h. an external perception of distinctiveness. 

6. Ethnic and Racial Categories . The basic racial and ethnic categories for 
DoD reporting are defined as follows: 

a. American Indian or Alaskan Native . A person having origins in the 
original peoples of North America. 

b. Asian or Pacific Islander . A person having origins in any of the 
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or 
the Pacific Islands. This area includes China, India, Japan, Korea, the 
Philippine Islands, and Samoa. 



2-1 



^- Black (Not of Hispan ic Origin) . A person having origins in any of 
the original peoples of Africa. 

d. Hispanic. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 
Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, or Central or South America, or of other Spanish 
cultures, regardless of race. 

^- White (Not of Hispani c Origin) . A person having origins in any of 
the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. 

7. National Origig. An individual's or ancestor's place of origin Also 
applies to a person who has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics 
of a national group. 

8. Race. A division of humans identified by the possession of traits that are 
transmissible by descent and that are sufficient to characterize as a distinctive 
human type. 

9. Religion. A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, 
moral or ethical beliefs, and practices that are held with the strength of 
traditional religious views, characterized by ardor and faith, and generally 
evidenced through specific religious observances. 

Sexual Harassment. A form of sex discrimination that involves unwelcomed 
sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical 
conduct of a sexual nature when: 

a. submission to or rejection of such conduirt is made either explicitly 
or implicitly a term or condition of a person's job, pay, or career, or 

b. submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a 
basis for career or employment decisions affecting that person, or 

c. such conduct interferes with an individual's performance or creates 
an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. 

Any person in a supervisory or command position who uses or condones implicit 
or explicit sexual behavior to control, influence, or affect the career, pay or 
job of a military member or civilian employee is engaging in sexual harassment. 
Similarly, any military member or civilian employee who makes deliberate or 
repeated unwelcomed verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual 
nature is also engaging in sexual harassment. 



2-2 



Doc 23, 88 . 
1350.2 (Kncl 3) 



MILITARY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

Each DoD Component shall submit an annual Military Equal Opportunity 
Assessment (MEOA) for the period ending September 30 to the ASD(FM&P) no later 
than February 1 of the following year. The report shall include the following 
information: 

A. An executive summary, providing an overall assessment of each DoD 
Component's AAPs and EO Programs, 

B, An assessment of each affirmative action in the following 10 categories 
shall be made an enclosure to the report. The assessment in each category should 
include quantitative data in the basic race/ethnic classifications for officers 
and enlisted personnel broken down by gender. 



1. 


Recruiting/ Access ions 


2. 


Composition 


3. 


Promotions 


4. 


Professional Military Education (PME) 


5. 


Separations 


6. 


Augmentation/Retention 


7. 


Assignments 


8. 


Discrimination/ Sexual Harassment Complaints 


9. 


Utilization of Skills 


10. 


Discipline 



C. Requirements are further explained in DoD Instruction 1350.3 (refe 
(h)). 



3-1 



Dec 23, 88 
1350.2 (End ^) 



ORGANIZATIONS AND FUNCTIONS 
1 • The Defense Equal Opportunity Council (DEOC) shall : 

a. Coordinate policy and review the military and civilian EO programs. 

b. Monitor progress of program elements. 

c. Advise the Secretary of Defense on policies for EO matters. 

d. Assist in developing policy guidance for education and training in 
EO and human relations for DoD personnel. 

2- The DEOC is Chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forc e 
Management and Person nel (ASD(FM&P)) . Other members are the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Reserve Affairs (ASD(RA)); the Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASAF(M&RA) ) ; the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA(MRA)); the Assistant Secretary 
of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN(M&RA)); and the Director of 
Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DASai(OSD)) . 

2- DEOMI is a DoD Field Activity Operating Under the Superrosion. Direction 

and Policy Guidance of the ASD(FM&P) . Located a.s a t->.n^ni- ^ ^o«-,ki ^ .-h-Tl ^ 

military installation, DEOMI shall be supported administratively and logistically 
by the Military Department responsible for the host installatioA. 

a. The mission of DEOMI is to enhance combat and/or operational readiness 
through improved leadership by functioning as the DoD center of excellence in 
all facets of military EO and human relations education and traming to 
include the following: 

(1) Providing primary training for all D6D military and civilian 
personnel assigned to military EO billets (to include the U.S. C«ist Guard), 
and staff officers who directly manage EO and human relations programs. 

(2) Performing EO and human relations research in conjunction with 
the Military Services and acting as a clearing house to monitor and disseminate 
research findings on EO and human relations. 

(3) Providing assistance or consultation services to DoD organi- 
zations in developing specific curricula and training for EO and kuman relations 
education, and particular training for the PME systems within the Military 
Services; and serving in an advisory capacity to other Agencies is education, 
industry, and the private sector, as determined by the Commandaot. 

(4) Disseminating educational training materials to assist EO advisors 
and human relations instructors in remaining current in the EO sAject area 

and in otherwise developing professionally. 

(5) Performing special research-related projects in support of the 

DEOC . 

(6) Operating and administering the Defense EO Electronic Bulletin 
Board to support EO advisors and specialists throughout the Military Services. 



4-1 



(7) Serving as a focal point and depository for data and research 
on the EO climate and sexual harassment in the Military Services. 



b. The following applies to appointments to DEOMI : 

(1) The Commandant shall be appointed by the ASD(FM&P) . This 
position shall rotate among representatives , nofninated by the Departments of 
the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

(2) The ASD(FM&P) shall establish criteria for assigning officers 
and enlisted persQnnel from the Military Departments , including the Coast Guard, 
National Guard, and Reserves to faculty and staff positions at DEOMI. 

4. The DEOMI BOV is an Adyisory Body to the ASD(FM&P) . , The 
Board is estabilished _ b^^ and serves as an external source of expertise 

to ensure perio^ic^, review of the objectives, policies, and operations of DEOMI • 



DoD Instruction 1350.3, "Affirmative Action Planning and 
Assessment Process," February 29, 1988 



Tab F 




Department of Defense 

INSTRUCTION 



Februat7 29, 1988 
NUMBER 1350.3 



SUBJECT: Affirmative Action Planniag and Assessment Process 
References: (a) 

(b) 



ASD(FM4P) 



DoD Directive 1350.2, "The Department of Defense Military 
Equal Opportunity Program," April 29, 1987 

Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Directive 15, "Race and 
Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative 
Reporting," May 1978 



PURPOSE 



This Instruction supplements reference (a) by prescribing DoD policy, 
llll^ responsibilities, and establishing minimum reporting reqiiremeits by 

siStSd'Jf jS'ir 'r '^^''^'^ ^'"-^ opportunity AsfessLxts (MeSa) 

submitted the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and 
Personnel (ASD(FM&P)) by the Military Services. It emphasires'STise of stand- 
ardized procedure, that support longitudinal analysirihroughout the DeparC^^t 
IL^ / i'** recognize. Service and/or Component prerogative, in est!bIl2!Ji 
goals and objective, and taking affirmative action loward their accompJisJiei? 
This Instruction establishes common report formats for use in tht ^MSaJ ffiS!* 

B. APPLICABILITY AMD SCOPE 
This Instruction: 

1. Applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Military 
^IVZ it^'^f'^K'^^^' Selected Reierve compoiei^sK 
^^ce'! "d'^'i^Je'^cf^pT'*'' " ^ 

2. Does not apply to the United States Coast Guard, whose civil rights 
program i. governed by the Department of Transportation. Nor does this 

Jji^rof^S/S!j- "I'S' ^^'^"^^ services, namely, the Co».issioned 

corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of 
Commerce, or the Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. 

C. POLICY 

di-*J^-i«^? fS^-*^ the Military Services to monitor and report on selected 
dimensions of their personnel programs to ensure equal opportunity and fair 
treatment for all Service members through affirmative actions and other initia- 
tives. It IS the prerogative of the Services to establish requirements for 
affirmative action plans and assessments at organizational levels below Service 
headquarters. 



D. DEFIKITIONS 



Terms used in this Instruction are defined in enclosure 1. 



E. RZSPOKSIBILITIES 



1. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personne l) 

( ASD (FM&P ) ) , consistent with DoD Directive 1350.2 (reference (a)), shall 

• establish categories and monitor specific actions included in the Affirmative 
Action Plan(s) (AAP) of each Military Component. This shall include providing 
a written analysis of each HEOA to the Services, as well as preparing a DoD 
summary. 

2- The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) (ASD(RA)) 
shall assist in the analyses of Reserve component MEOAs. 

3. The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall ensure that the 
Military Components (to include Active/National Guard, and Reserve) implement 
the Affirmative Action Planning and Assessment Process in accordance with this 
Instruction. Use of statistical tests and other evaluative techniques are 
encouraged. 

F. INFORMATION REQUIREMEKTS 

1- Each Service shall provide to the ASD(FMSa>) a copy of its current AAP(s) 
with schedules for revision, New editions and/or changes shall be furnished 
upon publication. Active and Reserve component AAPs may be contained in 
separate sections of a Service AAP or may be prepared and maintained as 
separate dociiments. 

2. An annual MEOA is required by DoD Directive 1350.2 (reference (a)) and 
assigned Report Control Symbol DD-FM&P(A)1760. Reporting requirements are 
contained in enclosure 3 of that Directive and further clarified in enclosure 
2 of this Instruction. Assessments must include all DoD Active and Selected* 
Reserve components, but data on Components should not be consolidated. 

G. EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPtEMERTATIOH 

This Instruction is effective immediately and applies to assessments for 
FY 88 due to FM&P February 1, 1989. Forward one copy of implementing documents 
to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) within 
90 days. s 



: 3 Grant S. Green. Jr/ , 

1. Definitions Assistant Secreta^ Defense 

I' S^^S!''^^''5.S!I^?r"?*x"'* Subjects for MEOA Force Management and Personnel 
3. DD Form 2509 (Sample) 




2 



Feb 29, 88 
1350.3-(Encl 1) 



DEFINITIONS 

NOTE: Defiiiitioas contained in enclosure 2 of DoD Directive 1350.2 (ref- 
erence (a)) are incorporated by reference in this Instruction. 

1. Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) . A Service and/or Component document that 
nay contain initiatives, processes, systems, activities, objectives, goals, and 
milestones that have been established to achieve the objectives of the equal 
opportunity program- The AAP is a management tool intended to assist in over- 
coming the effects of discriminatory treatment as it affects equal opportunity, 
upward mobility, and the quality of life for military personnel. 

2. Affirmative Action Planning and Assessment Process . A systems approach to 
MEO initiatives that encompasses the AAP, the MEOA, and the DoD Summary Analysis 
of MEO. 

3. Affirmative Action Plan Reporting Category . One of the ten categories 
listed in enclosure 3 of DoD DirectiVc 1350.2 and included in Service and/or 
Component AAPs, for which annual assessments are required from the Services in 
the manner prescribed by this Instruction. These ten are the minimum reporting 

.^yce^uirements but the Services may add additional categories as they deem 
vjmppropriate. 

4. DoD Summary Analysis of Military Equal Opportunity . The annual %rritten 
evaluation of Service MEOA submissions prepated by ASD(FH&P). Normally, this 
suamiary evaluation will be prepared within 90 days of submission of the Services* 
HEOAs. 

5. Military Equal Opportunity Assessment (MEOA) . An annual r«5)ort covering 
the previous fiscal year, due to ASD(FH&P) no later than February I of the 
current year. The MEOA displays and analyzes, by Affirmative Action Plan 
Reporting Category, the data required by enclosure 3 to DoD Directive 1350.2 
(reference (a)), and further described in this Instruction. The MEOA is 
designed to measure the effect of affirmative actions and initiatives (as 
determined by proponents) mm well as provide the rationale for establishing and 
updating AAP milestones and/or creating new goals. 

6. Military Equal Opportunity Assessment Subjects . Any of the many prescribed 
•or optional subcategories that are reported annually by the Services within 

the Affirmative Action Plan Reporting Categories contained in the MEOA. 

7. Tracked Group . One of the ethnic or racial categories designated by 0MB 
Directive 15 (reference (b)). These are defined in enclosure 2 of reference 

(a). 

8. Trend (or Longitudinal) Analysis . A numerical and narrative comparison of 
specific elements of data over time for evidence of change or relative fluctu- 
ation. 



1-1 



1350.3 (End 2) 



REPORTING CATEGORIES AND SUBJECTS 
for 

AHKUAL MILITARY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT 

(MEOA) ■ 

,r PoD Directive 1350.2 (reference (a)) requires tliat each Military Departaenc 
subait (ftn AimuAl . x^poriL £or .Ciic , period ^ndxxig^SispCi^^ 30 *tiie ASD(FH&P) no 
later thM, Fehrwa^y. 1 of the follo^rLng yc^ff^.^^ ^'^l* ^'y'i^^ include an Zxec- 

utive SuiiBury^ pj.ua specified data pnd urra|:iver^ Enclosure 3 of 

that Directive lists, the tfn ca;teg^ to be inclu!^^ in the annual 

MEOA* While organizations suiy benefit from iBOZlitoring it^iB loidt listed (e.g.\ 
awards and other recognition programs ), these ten categories are the ttinisum 
reporting requireipents for the ffi 

this enclosure provides further guidahce on MEOA r requirements by 

subject in each of the ten categories. Again, organizations say opt to assess 
additional .subjects, for a particular tisie period within each category, such as 
Joint Duty Assignments within Category 7 , but: those -l^^^S^J^^a^' ithe minimum 
subject requiremfentir / - ^^^^v? : 

In all categgrie|j, narratiyes that begiji on the face of a form may be 
continuied on blank sheets behind the form, the MEOA shall be submitted in three 
copies; it ahall be an 11** horizontal by 8V' vertical document^ bound on the 
left. Both sides of pages may be used. i 

1. REdailTiHG AHD/OR ACCESSIONS - ^ : 7 ? ^ "^' ^ 

a. Each accession program listed below is considered a separate reporting 
,|ubjcc|: and a I^^^^ ISOg^cnclosimcje 3) shall be prepared for assessing each 

^of the jiubj^ii:| — * 

(a) iiptt-prior service. ; «^ - 4. 
(bF Pnor seryijce (not reenlistM 

(2) Officer (Commissioneil) 

jti.) Besierfe Officers* Training Cpurse (ROTC) (scholarships iden- 
tified separately). 

(b) Service Ai^demy. ' /^T 

(c) Officer Candidate or Training School (OCS or OTS). 

(d) ifon-line and/or direct commissxbh;.^^ ^''^^^^-^^ 

(e) Enlisted commissioning program. 

(f) Professional Branches (Legal, Chaplain and Medical). 



2-1 



(g) Other Service-unique programs. 

(3) -Officer (Warrant) - as applicable, assess separately 
by Service and/or Cosiponent 

(a) Flight training programs. 

(b) Other programs in aggregate (due to small numbers). 

b. For the Enlisted subject reports, columns 5A, 6A, and 7A of DD Form 
2509 (enclosure 3) shall be used to list actual numbers entering the Service 
during the reporting period. Columns 5B, 6B, and 7B will list TOTAL numbers 
(from all tracked groups) accessed during the reporting period. 'Column 5C 6C 
and 7C entries result from dividing the A column figures by the respective *B *' 
column figures. Entries in the C column shall be displayed as decimal figures 
rounded to the nearest hundredth place. Blocks 5D, 6D, 7D, and 8 are reserved' 
for OSD use. 

c. For the reports on Officer subjects, the actual numbers who were 
accessed through (i.e.. successfully completed) the subject- programs shall be 
Ixsted in columns 5A, 6A, and 7A of DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3). Columns 5B 
6B, and 7B shall list total .numbers accessed in the reporting period in the' 
same grade group categories from all sources. Column 5C, 6C, and 7C entries 
will result from dividing the A column figures by the respective B column 
figures. Entries in the C column shall be displayed as decimal figures, rounded 
to^the nearest hundredth place. Blocks 5D, 6D, 7D, and 8 are reserved for OSD 

oc/.« f * f«^'««t-y«*r data shall be reported and assessed on the face of DD Form 
2509 (enclosure 3); continuation sheets may be used as needed. Data for the 
previous 3 years will be provided on the reverse side of the form. (Note: the 
MEOA due to the ASD(rMSP) in February 1989 shall include FT 88 data plus the data 
from 17 87. The MEOA due in February 1990 shall add the data for FY 89. and the 
MEOA due in February 1991 shall add FT 90 data.) 

2. COMPOSITION 

a. Effective September 30, 1987 the Defease Manpower Data Center began 
preparing a DMDC-3035EO report that will be computer-generated quarterly and 
forwarded through the ASD(FlttP) to each of the Military Services. This report 
displays force composition by the following four subjects for each Service, 
and/or Component, and the Departmnt of Defense: 

(1) Commissioned Officer. 

(2) Warrant Officer (if applicable). 

(3) Enlisted. 

(4) Total. 

b. This category does not require tlie use of DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3). 
The numbers reported in this category shall constitute the data base for all 
other MEOA categories. The computer printout sheets shall be photocopied and 



2-2 



Feb 29. 66 • 
1350.3 (End 2) 



reduced so tiut they will be the same size as the other oases of th^ kpoa 
MEOA due to the ASDCRttP) in February 1989 shall incJude^:fe dSdc-ISssT " 
reports for- both September 1987 and September 1988. 

3. PROMOTIONS 

a. Assessments shall be made of promotions that result from a centralis**! 
Service-wide selection process. «-™i.t«xizea 

b. At least the following subjects shall be assessed in this category: 



(1) 


Pronotions 


C2) 


Promotions 


(3) 


Promotions 




Promotions 


(5) 


Promotions 


(6) 


Promotions 


A separate 00 Focb 2509 



A separate DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3) shall be prepared for each subject. 

selec;ion"iori.!!r*H*;^**J^ promotion, shall be a..e..ed based on the date of 
selection, not the date of promotion. Data shall include all individual. Ln! 

^^^^ 

ilw^t!^^ ; " ^ " ^'^^ the Reserve component, xll 

selection and promotion zone data need not be restricted to the SeleS^d* 
Reserve but rather should reflect all r-.-^h.^I 7-^ 2 selected 
under consideration bj a bHrd! " « "tive statu, actually 

list^'act^l^nuISn.^i! (enclosure 3) column. SA. dA. and 7A .hall be used to 
ii^Ll ^J^ii. (»»y tracked groups) selected for promotion within the 

?oSiLrL^ SB, 6B, and 7B shall list the total number 

!nS^7r ! f P'o^l^on a. specified in paragraph 3.c.. above. Column 5C, 6C 
JJlxIe. '^^^/--It' of <iividin8 the figure. In the A coluZ by the 

figure, in the ren«etive B column.. Entrie. in the C column .hall be displayed 

I ^ figures, rounded to the nearest hundredth place. Block. 5D, 7d! 
and 8 are reserved for OSD use. * w-* o«, /u, 

2509*fenc?ir!;r^r' be reported and assessed on the face of DD Fonn 

2509 (enclosure 3); continuation sheets may be used as needed. Data for the 

^OA due to the ASD(RttP) m February 1989 shall include FT 88 data plus the 
the MEOA due in February 1991 shall add FY 90 data.) 



2-3 



PROFESSIOKAL MILITARY EDUCATION 



a. Thi. assessment category does not include the Legal. Medical or Ch;.ni, 
professional education systems. Rather, this assessment pertains tl ^'"P^*" 
category of professional military education. A separate DD Fom Mm ? 
3)^shall be prepared for each of the subjects list^d^^2'hl:x"g1^^f:^^^^^^^^ 

(1) Officer 

(a) Senior service school. 

(b) Internediate-level school. 

(c) Career-level school (as applicable). 

above Honcommissioned Officer (NCO) - Any school meeting criteria listed 

b. On DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3), columns SA 6A «od 7a -K.n k 

m 7B shall U«t the nuaben considered for selectisn ri™ IT^ 6B. 

When the ten "eoneidered" i. m>t ep.Ue.Me for TilJtl^l^^ ^ po"?.). 

5B, 6B «,d 7B .hen diepiey the toSi ::^i:r';: JhT HL'f 
J;:i;.l:r«r-eJ1?r.l^--^^ 

those in the respective B columns. Entries in the C^S!^ ^ ^\ columns by 

.eereeThSdS^tS -^.^.^'^117%, 

.o/fenSo-n^rn-'erihStLlhe'e^-JJ t^'j^.TA't^Tj- L'L' L^-^th^-" 

^TJnV^A • * J« MSOA <lue in February 1990 shall add the data for FY 89 and 
the HEOA due in February 1991 shaU add FT 90 data.) 

5. SEPARATIONS 

of tJ;..*!!I!*f'*""*J"*'i"*** »*P«"tion« that are involuntary. Numbers 

of those who leave the Service voluntarily are not included Thi* c.t-^«™^«!! 
not apply to the selected Reservists in a^olunt:jy":i«1;viIJ^en""f;Sp;'"r 
those on continuous active duty for periods over 180 days who arr!nv;i^"rily 

Form 2509 (enclosure 3). columns 5A. 6A. and 7A are used to list 
;!«S^LT T "voluntary separations that are dishonorable diJJJarJes. Jld 
col^l in;'*"; « *'^«5-"« other than honorable conditions.* ik 

colums 5B, 6B. and 7B are listed the figures for total involuntary separations 
for the tracked group (including reductions in force (RIFs). statSo^J «Ji«! 
ments, medical, etc.). Entries in columns 5C. 6C. and 7C .« oJt^inS Jy 



2'A 



1350.3 (End 2) 



dividing the figures in the A columns by those in the corresponding B columns. 
Entries in the C columns shall be displayed as decimal figures, rounded to the 
nearest hundredth place. Blocks 5D, 6D. 7D, and 8 are reserved for OSD use. 

c. Current-year data shall be reported and assessed on the face of DD Form 
2509 (enclosure 3); continuation sheets may be used as needed. Data for the 
previous 3 years shall be provided on the reverse side of the form. (Note: the 
MEOA due to the ASD(FM&P) in February 1989 shall include FT 88 data plus the 
data from FY 87. The MEOA due in February 1990 shall add the data for FY 89, 
and the MEOA due in February 1991 shall add FY 90 data.) 

6. AUQIENTATIOK AND/OR RETENTION 

a. For the purposes of this reporting category, augmentation is defined 

as a process by which officers of the Reserve components are transferred to the 
regular component of a Service for purposes of serving on active duty. 
Augmentation reports, therefore , be submitted only by the Active 

components . 

b. In the reports on AUGMENTATION subjects, columns 5A, 6A, and 7A shall 
list actual numbers selected; while columns 5B, 6B, and 7B slull list the numbers 
considered (i-e., those who applied) by tracked groups. Figures in columns 5C, 
6C, and 7C are obtained by dividing the figures in the A columns by those in the 
respective B columns. Enlisted members shall be reported in this category only 
when applicable. 

c. The Defense Manpower Data Center began tracking retention of' cohort 
units in FY 71 and has data available from that time to the present. Assessments 
in this category shall examine trends by reporting numbers in 5 year increments, 
starting with fiscal years 1973, 1978, and 1983, as well as the current fiscal 
year. Each year's report will add 1 year to each of those cited here (i.e., 

the MEOA due February 1, 1990 shall include fiscal years 1974, 1979, 1984, and 



d. Retention of officer and enlisted members shall be monitored and re- 
ported separately, as applicable. Specialties to be monitored shall be deter- 
mined by the Services as those they deem to be of interest. 

e. In the reports on RETENTION subjects, columns 5A, 6A, and 7A shall list 
the actual numbers retained; while columns 5B, 6B, and 7B shall list the numbers 
by tracked groups who entered (or were recruited) with that year group. The 
figures in columns 5C, 6C, and 7C are obtained by dividing the figures in the 

A columns tgf those in the corresponding B columns. 

f . Entries in the C columns shall be displayed in decimal form, rounded to 
the nearest hundredth place. Blocks 5D, 6D, 7D, and 8 are reserved for OSD use. 

7. ASSIGNMENTS 

a. Assessments shall be made of those billets that are defined as career 
enhancing by the Service rendering the report. Separate DD Forms 2509 (enclo- 
sure 3) shall be prepared on the subjects of comunding officer and deputy or 
assistant commanding officer billets of specific pay grades selected by the 



2-5 



Services, as a Bioiaum. Services may also wish to coosider joint duty assign- 
ments as meeting the criteria in this category. Senior enlisted assignments 
within a pay grade should likewise be considered for assessment as a subiect in 
the MEOA. 

b. On DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3), columns 5A, 6A, and 7A shall be used to 
list actual numbers assigned to Service-defined career enhancing billets within 
a single grade. Cblumns 5B, 6B, and 7B shall list total population in the 
applicable grade by tracked groups. Entries in columns 5C, 6C, and 7C shall be 
obtained by dividing figures in the A columns by those in the respective B 
columns. Column C entries shall be displayed as decimal figures, rounded to the 
nearest hundredth place. Blocks 5D, 6D, 7D, and 8 are reserved for OSD use. 

c. Current-year data shall be reported and assessed on the face of DD Form 
2509 (enclosure 3); continuation sheets may be used as required. Data for the 
previous 3 years shall be provided on the reverse side of the form. (Note- to 
the extent possible, the MEOA due to the ASD(FM&P) in February 1989 shall include 
FY 88 data plus the data from FY 87. The MEOA due in February 1990 shall add 
the data for FY 89, and the MEOA due in February 1991 shall add FY 90 data.) 

8. DISCRIMINATION AND/OR SEXllAI HARASSMEKT COMPLAINTS 

a. Assessments shall be made fSr those complaints of discrimination that 
surface through official channels. Services must make those efforts necessary 
to ensure that coi^laints are captured (consolidated) from the various entry 
points where they are initially registered (e.g.. Chaplain, Judge Advocate 
General (JAG), Inspector General (IC), Equal Opportunity (£0)/Social Actions, 
Request Mast, official hotline(8). Uniform Code of Military Justice (UOU) 
Article 138, congressional correspondence, and others, as appropriate). 

b. A separate DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3) shall be prepared for the following 
two subjects: 

(1) Discrimination - including race, ethnicity, sex (excluding sexual 
harassment), national origin, religion, and age (if applicable). 

(2) Sexual Harassment (as defined in DoD Directive 1350.2 (reference 

(a)). 

c- On DD Foim 2509 (enclosure 3), columns 5A, 6A, and 7A shall be used to 
list the numbers of those complaints registered by members of each group that 
were confirmed (i.e., substantiated). Columns 5B, 6B, and 7B shall list the 
total number of complaints filed BY THE SAME TRACKED GROUPS as in the A columns. 
Efforts must be taken to ensure that a cooiplaint is counted under only one 
subject. Entries in columns 5C, 6C, and 7C shall result from dividing the 
figures in the A columns by those in the corresponding B columns. Entries in 
the C column shall be displayed as decimal figures, rounded to the nearest 
hundredth place. Blocks 5D, 6D, 7D, and 8 are reserved for OSD use. 

d. To the extent possible, data from previous years should be reported 
on the reverse of DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3). 



2-6 



1350.3 (End 2) 



9. UTILIZATION OF SKILLS 



a. A«*e*saencs in this category shall be made separately for officer and 
enlisted. At least five areas in which one or more minority groups (regardless 
of gender) or in which most, women are under- or overreprescnted must be included 
Each area or specialty assessed for either officers or enlisted members shall 
constitute a subject in this category. 

b. Neither DD For™ 2509 (enclosure 3) nor DMDC-3035EO shall be used for 
this assessment category. However, assessments should include trends for the 
last 3 fiscal years for those skills in which minorities or women are under- 
or overrepresented. Due to the wide range of subjects eligible for inclusion 
in this category, individual MEOAs must display the relevant data in formats 
that are meaningful for the individual subjects. 

c. Skills groupings for reporting purposes should be in accordance with 

r ^^"^^'^ " reports). These reports are available 

from DMDC on a quarterly basis. Services may further break their assessments 
down by Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 
or Navy Enlisted Cla.sification (NEC), if this is deemed appropriate. 

10. DISCIPLINE 

a. Assessments shall include two UOU subjects — nonjudicial and judicial 
punishments; each requires preparation of a separate DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3) 
All types of courts martial resulting in conviction may be consolidated on one ' 
priate * render assessments in this category as appro- 

b. On DD Form 2509 (enclosure 3), columns 5A, 6A, and 7A shall be used to 
^'-.^'v*?!"*!^ numbers of those who were awarded punishment. Columns 5B, 6B. 

and 7B shall list the total population figures for those in the tracked groups 
Entries in columns 5C, 6C, and 7C shall be obtained by dividing the A column 
figures by the respective B column figures. Column C entries shall be displayed 
in decimal form, rounded to the nearest hundredth. Blocks 5D, 6D. 7D. and 8 
are reserved for OSD use. 



c. 



Current-year data shall be reported and assessed on the face of DD Form 
2509 (enclosure 3); continuation sheets may be used as needed. Data for the 
previous 3 years shall be provided on the reverse side of the form. (Note: the 
MEOA due to the ASD(IBtf) in February 1989 shall include FT 88 data plus the 
data from^ 87. The HEQA due in February 1990 shall add the data for FY 89, and 
the MEOA ^ .in February 1991 shall add FY 90 data.) 



2-7 



Feb 29, 88. 1350.3 (End 3) 



Ul 
LU 

(/I 

< 



3 
O 



o 

< 
a 

UJ 

>- 

< 



5 



3 
U 

S 
o 



< 



X 
X 

a: X 

w X 

2 X 

D X 
2 X 

Z I 
O X 
X X 
a. X 



o 



09 
4) 
O 
L. 

O 
CO 
0) 

c 
e 

S 



o 

■ o 

1*1 a» 

St 



O 4^ 

s o 

o £ 5 

O 

•M C > 

X a» <^ 

O U 4P 

o c 

U 4) * 

O E * 

O 4> V 

«^ • 



GO 



a 

c 
o 

4^ 

i 

o 

o 



NO 
I 

o 



4-> 

o 

E 

o 
u 



9 



c 

5 c 
< < 



|2 



I 

11 



a. 
£ 



II 



Z B 

^ o 



< 

o 



0) 

o. 



c 
o 

o 

E 
O 

u 

Oi 

u 
o 



01 

Li 

CO 

c 
o 
o 

<g 

hi 

O 0 



^ Li 
MJ ^ 

5§ 



o 

01 

to 
u 



-1 



c 
o 

o 

§ 

u 

Pi 

. o 

|Cm 

2 o» 

9^ 
O CO 



^ 01 



OJ 

t: > 

3) O 

Of <o 



to a 

a; 0) 

> c 
— o 

4-> JZ 

c 

o 

(0 

O TJ 
^ 0) 

C -4 

« > 

o 

C CO 
. O -4 

o o 
d O 

0) U3 
> 

CO 



c 
o 



o 

c 

a. 

«o c 
o» o 
jz «^ 

(0 4J 

^ < 

4J > 
(0 •P^ 

0> <U 

CO E 

« 

jC «^ 

u < 

o 

0> 4^ 

U «4 



> ^ «H 



o 

CO O 
4^ C 

CI d 
0> ^ 
Pt 

3 

« o 

C C 
01 

4J 

>^ c 
kl ^ 
o 

0) 0> 

4J 4^ 

0 4J 

01 I 

0) 

4J u 

e 



4J 4J 

c c 

O; 01 
C E 
o 0> 

o*^ 

B 01 

s « 

O 4^ 

> o 

U 

0) 01 
CO u 

0> 0> 

x: £ 

4^ ^ 

^ o 
o 

2 >• 

6 ^ 

0 O 

01 

o 



C O 01 



to 9 

e o 



o» 

; -4 ^ 

1^ 

I ^ 

i 4j 01 

' C (0 

i 0» 01 

; o 

. o» o 

1 o to 

► -4 4) 

! > 

: 01 o 

: w 

^ CD 

0; ••4 



01 

> «-4 

-4 01 

4J 

CI 

0 o 

JC 

01 CO 

JO 

4J O 

*H 

E 

o o 
^ o 

0» JD 
CO 

c 

O ■*4 

c 

O CO 

o ^ 
u 

d d 

C 01 



Sfi- -4 X 



c a; 



c > ^ 

3 3 

CO bl 
0) 0) 

^ > CJ 



I 

□ 



CO • e9 

o cn 

E O 

to *i o CO a> 

o -4 o >, cu 

4-> d JQ d CI 

0 ^ a. c 

01 O —4 CO 0) • 
^ o -4 to 
^ C X u ^ 
3 0> 6-» O O 
(0 X ^01 

CO a —3 

CO •*4 • 0) «o 

*-4 OB 01 ^ 3 

•C jO «^ > ^ CO 

4P d o d 

C CO 0) o 

o» js d 
^01 d d c 

CO U OJ #-4 d 
^ 0> *H O, 01 

a; JC CO E CO 

> > £ ^ O 0) 

^ 73 CI 
4d CO 01 L. 

o Of d ^ o 

dl O • 4J 

— > c 01 d o 01 

«P d ^ 'O 4J 

O 4J «a d 
CO ^ c o 
.O. C CD d «^ 

< CO a to u 

< O «^ 01 0) 

01 O* 4-9 ^ 

O CO CO 

4i> O 4J «-4 CO 

JS O 4J ^ 

^ c d c 

^ - 4^ 0) 

O C O CO u 

»^ d 4-> 

4^ » 01 

C JC •o 

0) • 4^ 4^ C 

E c d 
JC o; oj o 

CO T9 E 4^ C 

4> JC -4 

^ 01 CO CO 
CU C 4-> 
E ^ c 01 

O CO Q. 01 ^ 

o d fi e «-4 

0 O E 
d CO CI o c^ 

O CI 

CO 01 d CO 
- 01 jii -4 

4J J= >» C ^ 

c a X -4 E 0) 

01 > ^ u u 
c Jtf o I 

0 C 0) O ^ CO 

Q« d c ^ CO 
6 ^ CO o 

S<0 E 01 u 

d 4J ji u 

^ K d 4.> 

01 d 01 o 

U C &• «J 
O O Q« O 

> O 01 

b 4^ i« 01 4J 

01 01 OUTS d 

CO «a ^ Ot — • 

«0 ^ OS CO u 

01 d d c 

3 CO 01 o 

4J C ^ •-4 CO u 

0 d a- 

Cm > 01 Q« • 

0 > 

01 0» 01 c 
4^ 3 jO • U 01 C 

c c CO ja — 

01 >* 01 4^ 

E 4^ d CO JC ^ 
CO e 8 >k 4^ CO 

CO o ^ -4 c 

Of o 4^ d CO 9 c 

CO c d E 

CO 10 d CO 

d c » I 01 Of CJ 

(0 ^ c« ^ 4p w 

Of ^ ^ jU 
S>jtf>oidOC\; 

9 -*4 O Of CO 3 

8» 4^ o ^ 4^ >» 
Mtf^jcoi d-«4 ^ 
b ^ CI > > z 

< d CO «9 Of u Cf 

C •'^ Cf U Of «^ 

_ £ O Of o e 

••<4J C-9E-* - 



4^ 

o 



I 

CO 
CO 
Of 
CO 
CO 

d 

Of 

u 
c 

Cf 

u 

Of 



o 
z: 
< 



-3 

CO 

o 



Cx3 Cs3 

rt o 

Es3 C3 
CI. 

>- is, 

H O 

U Z 

CO o 

< < 

o p 

CO < 



S-i o 



o 

o 

E 
o 

o 
o 



3 



-1 



Summary of Current Professional Military Education EO 

Training 



Tab G 



Professional Military Education 
Equal Opportunity Training - Summary and Assessment 

Army 

The Army War College had four hours of equal opportunity/sexual harassment training during 
academic year 1993-1994, but has zero hours in the 1994-1995 curriculum. 

The Command and General Staff College has a 3.2 hour block of instruction on implementation 
of the EO program. Topics covered include: description of the Army's EO program; identifying 
leadership duties and responsibilities; and identifying cultural issues relating to EO. The 
instruction includes a 20-25 minute practical exercise in identifying discrimination and/or sexual 
harassment. This seems to be more a summary of the officer advanced course program rather 
than presenting new material dealing with management of EO programs or problems. AAPs 
above unit level are not discussed. Leadership involvement and holding subordinates 
accountable are not reviewed 

The Officer Advanced Course has a 6.3 hour block of instruction on implementing a company 
level EO program. It is divided into 4.7 hours of conference and 1.6 hours of practical exercises. 
Topics covered include: description of the Army's EO program; identifying EO leadership duties 
and responsibilities; identifying cultural issues related to EO; identifying situations of 
discrimination and sexual harassment and recommending appropriate corrective action; 
identifying UCMJ implications of the Army's EO program; defining enforcement of EO policies; 
describing implementation of the EO program; identifying leadership issues related to cultural 
diversity; identifying techniques for EO climate assessments; constructing an EO action plan that 
will correct unacceptable behavior and integrate elements of battalion and brigade AAPs into 
company EO programs; and identifying techniques of EO training. 

The Officer Basic Course has a 5.2 hour block of instruction on performing platoon/section 
leader EO duties. It is divided into 3.6 hours of conference and 1.6 hours of practical exercises. 
Topics covered include: description of the components of the Army's E O program; identifying 
EO leadership duties and responsibilities; identifying leadership issues relating to cultural 
diversity; identifying situations of discrimination and sexual harassment and recommending 
appropriate action; identifying steps for the prevention of sexual harassment; identifying UCMJ 
implications of the EO program; identifying techniques for EO climate assessment; constructing 
an EO action plan that will correct unacceptable behavior for a platoon size unit; identifying 
techniques for EO training; and identifying behaviors that convey dignity and respect. 

The U.S. Military Academy produces an annual Leader Development Resource Book which 
contains resource material and lesson plans for human resource training at the Academy during a 
given academic year. The book for the 1993-1994 academic year contains 62 lesson plans. Of 
that number, 2 are on prejudice, 1 is on power.and discrimination, 1 is on racism, 1 is on sexual 
harassment, and six are on date/acquaintance rape. Each lesson plan comprises a one hour block 
of instruction. 



The Warrant Officer Advanced Course has a 6.3 hour block of instruction on implementing a 
unit level equal opportunity program. It is divided into 4.7 hours of conference and 1.6 hours of 
practical exercises. Topics covered include: description of the Army's EO program; identifying 
EO leadership duties and responsibilities; identifying cultural issues related to EO; identifying 
situations of discrimination and sexual harassment and recommended corrective actions; 
identifying UCMJ implications of the EO program; defining enforcement of EO policies; 
describing implementation of the EO program; identifying issues related to cultural diversity; 
identifying techniques for EO climate assessment; constructing an EO action plan; and 
identifying techniques for EO training. 

The Warrant Officer Candidate Course has a 5.2 hour block of instruction on performing section 
leader equal opportunity duties. It is divided into 3.0 hours of conference and 2.2 hours of 
practical exercise. Topics covered include: describing the Army's EO program; identifying EO 
duties and responsibilities; identifying leadership issues related to cultural diversity; identifying 
situations of discrimination and sexual harassment; identifying UCMJ implications of the EO 
program; identifying techniques for climate assessment; constructing an EO action plan; 
identifying techniques of EO training; and identifying behaviors that convey dignity and respect. 

The Command Sergeants Major Course has a 1.5 hour block of instruction on advising the 
commander on the EO program. It is divided into 0.5 hours of conference and 1.0 hours of 
practical exercise. Topics covered include: identifying current Army EO issues and identifying 
EO means to advise the commander. 

The Sergeants Major Course has a 4.7 hour block of instruction on advising commanders and 
staff on the EO program. It is divided into 3 .5 hours of conference and 1.2 hours of practical 
exercise. Topics covered include: describing the Army's EO program; identifying EO 
leadership duties and responsibilities; identifying cultural issues related to EO; identifying 
situations of discrimination and sexual harassment and recommended appropriate corrective 
actions; identifying UCMJ consequences of EO violations; defining enforcement of EO policies; 
identifying behaviors that convey dignity and respect; describing the Sergeant Major's role in 
implementation of the EO program; identifying techniques for EO climate assessment; and 
constructing an EO action plan. 

The First Sergeants' Course has a 4.9 hour block of instruction on implementing the unit level 
EO program. It is divided into 3.6 hours of conference and 1.3 hours of practical exercise. 
Topics covered include: describing the Army's EO program; identifying EO leadership duties 
and responsibilities; identifying cultural issues related to EO; identifying situations of 
discrimination and sexual harassment; identifying UCMJ implications of the EO program; 
defining enforcement of EO policies; describing implementation of the EO program; identifying 
techniques for EO climate assessment; and constructing an EO action plan. 

The Drill Sergeants' Course has a 3.0 hour block of instruction on implementing an initial entry 
training (lET) EO program. It is divided into 1.7 hours of conference and 1.3 hours of practical 
exercise. Topics covered include: describing the Army's EO program; understanding EO 
leadership duties and responsibilities; recognizing cultural issues related to EO; identifying 



situations of discrimination and sexual harassment; and identifying UCMJ implications of the 
EO program. 

The Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course has a 6.0 hour block of instruction on 
performing platoon/section sergeant EO duties. It is divided into 3.4 hours of conference and 2.6 
hours of practical exercise. Topics covered include: describing the Army's EO program; 
understanding EO duties and responsibilities; identifying leadership issues related to cultural 
diversity; identifying situations of discrimination and sexual harassment; identifying techniques 
for the prevention of sexual harassment; identifying UCMJ implications of the EO program; 
identifying techniques for climate assessment; constructing an EO action plan; and identifying 
techniques for EO training. 

Initial entry training has a 3.2 hour block of instruction on applying the soldier's EO 
responsibilities. It is divided into 1.0 hours of conference and 2.2 hours of practical exercise. 
Topics covered include: describing the Army's EO program; identifying the soldier's EO duties 
and responsibilities; identifying cultural issues related to EO; identifying UCMJ implications of 
the EO program; and identifying behaviors that convey dignity and respect. 



Navy 

No lesson plans on equal opportunity or sexual harassment for the Naval War College were 
submitted. 

The Officer Accession Point Training Course does cover command managed EO and grievance 
procedures as well as responsibilities of leaders. No mention is made of EEO for civilians or 
leadership in a joint envitonment. Total instruction time is 2 hours. 

The course for prospective commanding officers has an EO segment for two hours. Six specific 
CO responsibilities are covered. 

The Senior Enlisted Academy discusses sexual harassment, but no other EO topic. 

Recruit Company Commander training includes EO and sexual harassment. It is 
complaint/climate oriented. 



Air Force 



The Air War College does not have a block of instruction devoted to equal opportunity or the 
conmiander's role. 



The Air Command and Staff College has one block of instruction on managing diversity, but 
none on managing equal opportunity or discrimination complaint systems. None of the four 
lesson objectives in the diversity class deal with a commander's responsibility to be involved in, 
knowledgeable about, or accountable for EO programs. 

Squadron Officer School has a lesson plan called "Current Discrimination: Case Studies" but it 
focuses principally on the prevention of sexual harassment. Two case studies are used, but both 
are poorly constructed. 

No lesson plans or any other form of educational material relation to EO which might be used in 
Officer Technical Schools or in AFROTC. 

The Senior NCO Academy covers self concept, values, sexual harassment, quality force 
management, and homosexual policy, but nothing on managing or operating EO programs. 

The NCO Academy has one lesson plan on human relations/sexual harassment, but nothing on 
EO programs or their operation. 

The Airman Leadership School has a two hour block of instruction on equal opportunity and 
treatment, but nothing on the EOT system, complaint counseling or informal resolution, or sexual 
harassment 



Marine Corps 

The Marine Corps War College covers ethics (2 hours), sexual harassment (2 hours), alcohol 
abuse (1 hour), moral courage (1 hour), military ethics (2 hours), and homosexuals in the miUtary 
(2.5 hours). Management of equal opportunity/discrimination complaint systems are not 
covered. Equal opportunity leadership and accountability are not discussed. 

Marine Corps Command and Staff College has no lesson plans on equal opportunity, 
discrimination, sexual harassment, or complaints processing. 

The Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School does not have specific lessons on EO or sexual 
harassment, but does have a package of instruction on "leadership/ethics/decision making" which 
covers both sexual harassment and equal opportunity "areas of concern." 

The Marine Corps Basic School has a 40 minute lecture on equal opportunity and a 40 minute 
lecture on sexual harassment. An additional 80 minutes is spent in discussion groups on these 
subjects. 

Marine Corps Officer Candidate School has a one hour lecture on sexual harassment, a one hour 
guided discussion on sexual harassment, and a hour lecture on the Commandant's equal 
opportunity policy. 



Marine Corps NCO Academy uses EO and sexual harassment scenarios for discussion, but has 
no lecture lesson plans. 

Marine Corps Recruit Training Regiment has 20 minutes of instruction on equal opportunity. 
Defines EO, summarizes the Marine Corps EO program, and familiarizes with Marine Corps EO 
policy.